Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Actually, you make an interesting point.... because killing an animal out of compassion, because you see it suffering in a gin-trap, and it could not survive its injuries - but then taking it and consuming it - is not the same as wantonly hunting it down, terirfying it out of its life by shooting it in the head and then carving it up....
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
(verse 1 of the Dhammapada)
In Buddhism, the "rightness" of an action is defined by the mindstates that are involved. If you kill an insect by accident, for example by stepping on it, this is not a negative action. Because there was no intention of "killing".
But would somebody with a pure mind continue to eat meat knowing that it causes additional suffering? Would somebody with a pure mind break the first precept merely to satisfy a dietary preference?
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
(verse 1 of the Dhammapada)
In Buddhism, the "rightness" of an action is defined by the mindstates that are involved. If you kill an insect by accident, for example by stepping on it, this is not a negative action. Because there was no intention of "killing".
But would somebody with a pure mind continue to eat meat knowing that it causes additional suffering? Would somebody with a pure mind break the first precept merely to satisfy a dietary preference?
I really don't think it's up to you to decide who has a "pure mind" because they have a different viewpoint.
But would somebody with a pure mind continue to eat meat knowing that it causes additional suffering? Would somebody with a pure mind break the first precept merely to satisfy a dietary preference?
I really don't think it's up to you to decide who has a "pure mind" because they have a different viewpoint.
It was a rhetorical question. Clearly somebody with a pure mind would not indulge in such behaviour.
But would somebody with a pure mind continue to eat meat knowing that it causes additional suffering? Would somebody with a pure mind break the first precept merely to satisfy a dietary preference?
I really don't think it's up to you to decide who has a "pure mind" because they have a different viewpoint.
It was a rhetorical question. Clearly somebody with a pure mind would not indulge in such behaviour.
Still, you can simply eat without having any unwholesome intentions. Eating is just eating. When you eat with the intention to harm, then of course there is an unwholesome intention and this wouldn't be possible for an enlightened being.
But even then, eating isn't the same as killing (and thus isn't breaking the first precept)...
Eating is just eating. When you eat with the intention to harm, then of course there is an unwholesome intention and this wouldn't be possible for an enlightened being. But even then, eating isn't the same as killing (and thus isn't breaking the first precept)...
What about buying meat?
Spiny
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I would think one of the answers to that would be, "why are you eating it in the first place?"
Spiny, I'm not sure how long you've been on this forum, or other Buddhist forums, but this general issue comes up over and over.
IMHO, you have a strong viewpoint, and you are attached to the idea that everyone should share that viewpoint.
And yet, what I have seen on this and other Buddhist forums is that this is one of the most debated everyday life issues in Buddhism. Even living in Thailand, the country with the largest percentage of Buddhists in the world (95%+), I've yet to personally meet a Buddhist who didn't eat meat, including monks.
That's not to say it's right, or wrong. It's to say it's a debatable point.
Not that different from giving money to a murderer.
:hiding:
LOL
If that were true, which it isn't, then butchers and farmers and fishermen (like me) would be criminals and outcasts from society. Instead of respected members of their community. Happy family people, devoted parents, taxpayers.
Not that different from giving money to a murderer.
:hiding:
LOL
If that were true, which it isn't, then butchers and farmers and fishermen (like me) would be criminals and outcasts from society. Instead of respected members of their community. Happy family people, devoted parents, taxpayers.
But would somebody with a pure mind continue to eat meat knowing that it causes additional suffering? Would somebody with a pure mind break the first precept merely to satisfy a dietary preference?
I really don't think it's up to you to decide who has a "pure mind" because they have a different viewpoint.
It was a rhetorical question. Clearly somebody with a pure mind would not indulge in such behaviour.
Still, you can simply eat without having any unwholesome intentions. Eating is just eating. When you eat with the intention to harm, then of course there is an unwholesome intention and this wouldn't be possible for an enlightened being.
But even then, eating isn't the same as killing (and thus isn't breaking the first precept)...
Maybe you can eat meat without unwholesome intentions and while not directly breaking the first precept, but that is being ignorant of the fact that what you're eating had no reason to suffer and die in the first place to satisfy a craving for the taste. Ignorance is still negative
And even if you didn't kill it yourself, you're supporting the people who do kill the animal and are the reason the killing of the being happens
Unless of course there is no other option than to eat meat to survive. Which is not the case most of the time
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
which comes back to the question, "why am i eating it in the first place?" And look - the answer may well simply come back as - "because I like it." and nobody - but nobody - has the right to tell someone that's not a valid, legitimate acceptable or pertinent reason. it's a reason. and not one anyone else has a right to judge. We're not the food police here. if people eat meat because they like it - then non-meat eaters should deal with it. vegetarians don't have the monopoly on virtue. they simply don't eat meat.
which comes back to the question, "why am i eating it in the first place?" And look - the answer may well simply come back as - "because I like it." and nobody - but nobody - has the right to tell someone that's not a valid, legitimate acceptable or pertinent reason. it's a reason. and not one anyone else has a right to judge. We're not the food police here. if people eat meat because they like it - then non-meat eaters should deal with it. vegetarians don't have the monopoly on virtue. they simply don't eat meat.
Thank you federica.
When I listen to some vegetarians -- which it is their free choice to be -- I feel the same as I feel when I hear evangelical born-again Christians. Some of them have to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Not that different from giving money to a murderer.
:hiding:
LOL
If that were true, which it isn't, then butchers and farmers and fishermen (like me) would be criminals and outcasts from society. Instead of respected members of their community. Happy family people, devoted parents, taxpayers.
That doesn't make it right
I guess it depends on what dreamworld you're living in. Where I live fishing is the backbone of the economy. Has been for generations of white occupation. And for many thousands of years before that first nations people have depended on it. I have never had to hang my head because of what I do. So I think it is "right" over here. Vegetarians have nothing to hide either. But they know better than to tell a first nations food fisherman that he is doing something immoral when supplying food to the band.
Vegetarian, here and have been strict vegetarian for the last two years. Prior to this, I was a "touch and go" veg head. But I finally buckled down and decided to do it.
Main reason or my vegetarianism is factory farming, and all of the suffering from its byproducts. Second reason is to uphold the first precept. Just my own personal view.
Saw the movie Earthlings prior to my vegetarianism and it had a profound effect on me. Not for the squeamish. Anyone else see this?
Not that different from giving money to a murderer.
:hiding:
LOL
If that were true, which it isn't, then butchers and farmers and fishermen (like me) would be criminals and outcasts from society. Instead of respected members of their community. Happy family people, devoted parents, taxpayers.
The Buddha did not consider "Business in meat" to be "wrong livelihood" for no reason.
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[46][47][48] Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
The Buddha did not consider "Business in meat" to be "wrong livelihood" for no reason.
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[46][47][48] Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
Well, you have copy pasted the precepts but said nothing about the reasons for them. Do you have a more fulfilling life for keeping the precepts as you see them? Do you have greater realization than someone who kills to feed his family? How can you tell? Have you seen hunters, farmers or fishermen suffering for their behavior? In every case? Let's hear about your experience in the world with these people. It wasn't taking life that brought the downfall of the first nations people on the coast. It was Europeans imposing their ways and religion on them.
Don't get me wrong. I support anyones choice to live by whatever precepts they want. And I don't support many people's view that beings lives are for playing with as in sport fishing. Not all farmers or fishermen are respectful of beings lives either. But many are.
The Buddha did not consider "Business in meat" to be "wrong livelihood" for no reason.
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[46][47][48] Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
Well, you have copy pasted the precepts but said nothing about the reasons for them. Do you have a more fulfilling life for keeping the precepts as you see them? Do you have greater realization than someone who kills to feed his family? How can you tell? Have you seen hunters, farmers or fishermen suffering for their behavior? In every case? Let's hear about your experience in the world with these people. It wasn't taking life that brought the downfall of the first nations people on the coast. It was Europeans imposing their ways and religion on them.
Don't get me wrong. I support anyones choice to live by whatever precepts they want. And I don't support many people's view that beings lives are for playing with as in sport fishing. Not all farmers or fishermen are respectful of beings lives either. But many are.
I'm just saying what the scriptures say. And they would not say that without a reason for saying that. It's related to making bad karma for oneself, not my personal experiences or with other people, but what the scriptures say about making karma.
I think there's a major difference between someone hunting to feed his family when there's no other choice and someone who factory farms meat. Major difference.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm all for discussing the different factors involved in eating/not eating meat, hunting, farming fishing and all it entails. but let's be careful about differentiating between observation and criticism. To borrow a well-known phrase, "Let he who has no sin....."
I think there's a major difference between someone hunting to feed his family when there's no other choice and someone who factory farms meat. Major difference.<blockquote
Where do you draw the line. Is it the hunter who brings home a deer or moose to fill the freezer? Is it the farmer who raises a couple of hundred head of cattle to sell to the meat packers, to earn his income? Or KFC that kills and sells millions of chickens per day.
How do you decide what choices people have?
So is the difference a moral issue? If so then I suppose it is an opinion which is valid. Still only an opinion. If it is a karmic issue then, again, I would like to hear some examples of farmers who have suffered the consequences of their actions. Guessing about lower rebirths won't cut it. Might as well say they are going to hell.
Or is it that someone who kills creatures for a living can not attain realization. How can that be proven?
If someone is vegetarian and settled on the path which is working for them they would be wise to stay with it. If someone is working in a meat packing plant to feed his family should he give up on meditation or refrain from studying Buddhism because there is no hope?
For me it's very much a moral/ethical issue rather than a karmic one. And I'm very well aware it's my personal opinion.
But for me, I just don't understand how people can justify animal cruelty. I'm certainly not a person who is perfect, nor have I ever claimed to be. Consumers who buy McDonald's/KFC while knowing the hideous practices that go on, well, no- I don't understand that.
You can't. However, that does not change the fact that actions have consequences.
If it is a karmic issue then, again, I would like to hear some examples of farmers who have suffered the consequences of their actions. Guessing about lower rebirths won't cut it. Might as well say they are going to hell.
And that is precisely what the Buddha has said.
"The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell."
And one can choose to believe that or not. But if you ask for "empirical evidence" of the fruits of karma in some individual circumstance, you won't find it because that "evidence" is impossible to obtain. What is possible to obtain is simply that actions always have consequences.
Or is it that someone who kills creatures for a living can not attain realization. How can that be proven?
That can't be proven as there are several accounts of killers, even murderers, getting enlightenment, but they all abandon the killing along the way.
If someone is working in a meat packing plant to feed his family should he give up on meditation or refrain from studying Buddhism because there is no hope?
Not necessarily, that is a personal choice. Mass murderer Milarepa got enlightenment. But it is always beneficial to simply know that actions have consequences, regardless of the circumstances.
"The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell."
And one can choose to believe that or not. But if you ask for "empirical evidence" of the fruits of karma in some individual circumstance, you won't find it because that "evidence" is impossible to obtain. What is possible to obtain is simply that actions always have consequences.
This is where we get to the heart of this issue. And it has to do with people's ignorance and prejudice. If someone is ignorant of the facts of modern factory farming they will buy their meat unaware that any being has suffered. If they become aware of those facts, they may jump straight to the conclusion that eating meat equals supporting murderers. If you read the Buddha's words it is clear that he is describing a mental state of the killer that does not apply to everyone who kills beings. If someone never has personal contact with any farmers or fishermen, or people from a culture who depend on meat or fish for survival, then they might not know the whole story. I don't know any farmers but I know many fishermen and first nations people personally. Some are as the Buddha described, many are not.
Many fishermen have great love and appreciation of nature and animals of all kinds. I have known several who are marine biologists. Some work in creek restoration and salmon enhancement programs. Or are active in local hatcheries. Most of us are intimately aquainted with the ocean, the fish and their life cycles and are concerned about conservation. Most are not brutal, bloody handed killers without mercy.
Speaking for the First Nations people and their relationship to the fish is not my place except to say that it is safe to assume some things. For many thousands of years the salmon and the people inhabited the area together. The salmon runs depend on a certain amount of mortality to prevent over spawning and to keep runs strong. People were a part of that. And First Nations people were and are dependent on salmon and other fish and their right to catch and eat fish has been written into the constitution ahead of all other users in recognition of that fact. People and fish were and to some extent still are, interdependent.
There are several organizations that can provide info on which fish species are being harvested sustainably for people who want to know where their food is coming from.
As for Karma. I does not make any sense to me that someone can live a happy, full life, develop realization, be loved by many and die peacefully then go straight to hell after death. But I am not going to tell anyone what they should believe.
The discussion between Robot and Seeker is, in a sense, key for me.
First, because despite the somewhat unanimous viewpoint of what karma is on this forum (that is in one's own mind), in other Buddhist groups you will find many -- perhaps even a majority -- who feel it is an unexplained process from outside the individual. I think to a degree, that is based on the difference between "old world Buddhism" and "new world Buddhism".
Second, but I often hear people on this forum sort of bragging about how "scientific" Buddhism is compared to other religions. I've always disagreed with that, and this current discussion is a good example of why. If Buddhism really is scientific, then Buddhists would not accept karma, and Robot describes why that would be the case.
Third, "we" tend to make a big deal about the concept that one shouldn't just accept any teaching (blah, blah, blah). Okay, fine. You haven't proven karma to me. Apparently you haven't proven karma to Robot...at least in a satisfactory way (if I'm reading him right).
So what is my bottom line. I'm open to the concept of karma, but as yet, no one has proven it to me. So I'm at the very least a heavy skeptic here. But there are lots of other principles of Buddhism that I can accept.
"The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell."
And one can choose to believe that or not. But if you ask for "empirical evidence" of the fruits of karma in some individual circumstance, you won't find it because that "evidence" is impossible to obtain. What is possible to obtain is simply that actions always have consequences.
This is where we get to the heart of this issue. And it has to do with people's ignorance and prejudice. If someone is ignorant of the facts of modern factory farming they will buy their meat unaware that any being has suffered. If they become aware of those facts, they may jump straight to the conclusion that eating meat equals supporting murderers. If you read the Buddha's words it is clear that he is describing a mental state of the killer that does not apply to everyone who kills beings. If someone never has personal contact with any farmers or fishermen, or people from a culture who depend on meat or fish for survival, then they might not know the whole story. I don't know any farmers but I know many fishermen and first nations people personally. Some are as the Buddha described, many are not.
Many fishermen have great love and appreciation of nature and animals of all kinds. I have known several who are marine biologists. Some work in creek restoration and salmon enhancement programs. Or are active in local hatcheries. Most of us are intimately aquainted with the ocean, the fish and their life cycles and are concerned about conservation. Most are not brutal, bloody handed killers without mercy.
Speaking for the First Nations people and their relationship to the fish is not my place except to say that it is safe to assume some things. For many thousands of years the salmon and the people inhabited the area together. The salmon runs depend on a certain amount of mortality to prevent over spawning and to keep runs strong. People were a part of that. And First Nations people were and are dependent on salmon and other fish and their right to catch and eat fish has been written into the constitution ahead of all other users in recognition of that fact. People and fish were and to some extent still are, interdependent.
There are several organizations that can provide info on which fish species are being harvested sustainably for people who want to know where their food is coming from.
As for Karma. I does not make any sense to me that someone can live a happy, full life, develop realization, be loved by many and die peacefully then go straight to hell after death. But I am not going to tell anyone what they should believe.
Yes that makes sense. The consequences are not as severe for one who kills to support their family by hunting, etc. as they are for a brutal bloody murderer mob hit man, etc. However, what I'm saying is that killing, for whatever reason, whether it is brutal or not brutal, bloody or not bloody, malicious or not malicious, always has consequences. The above quote is a very small sample of the Buddha's words regarding killing. There are many, many others. One is a story about a fisherman in The Dhammapada 270 and the associated story.
The Story of a Fisherman Named Ariya
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
I have a several friends in the fishing business who are the most devout Christians. They are wonderful people. I have honestly never heard them say a bad word about anyone. They are really living the Christian life. I'm pretty sure they believe that I will go to hell because I have not asked Jesus to come into my heart or whatever. Fishing for a living does not enter in their view as a negative to their spiritual life. Jesus said that only through him will a person meet his father (or something like that). My Christian friends believe that, and it has made them into the men they are, and I will never attempt to alter their view even if it means I'm going to hell in their eyes. Many Christians also believe that anyone who has not had the benefit of hearing the word of god is doomed to burn. Hence the atrocities committed on first nations people in his name. The reason I am bringing this up is obvious I know.
The parable you have quoted is aimed at giving direction to those on the Buddhist path. It is a powerful message. Buddhists can gain purification and attain realization by following these teachings. I support anyone who lives by it.
Still, In a way it contradicts his words in your previous post, in that in this case the fisherman, (killer) had purified himself to point that attracted the Buddha's attention, and he only needed a nudge to attain stream entry. He had arrived at the point where falling to a lower state is no longer possible. And killed beings right up to that point. The negative karma that he had performed was offset somehow. There must be other factors at work here.
Another thing that bothers me about the view that the karma of taking beings lives for food will always produce negative results is this. As I said several times so far, if those results are not felt during life, it is a matter of faith to accept that they will be experienced later by another being, even if it calls itself me. It's hard to believe that a person with some discernment must accept this view simply because it is written. Because I was born into fortunate circumstances in my life, am I to assume that a previous being took no lives? The math does not add up. So I am not to think about these things at the pain of going mad. And accept that because it has been spoken, that terrible things will happen if I continue on this path. Against all evidence to the contrary. I better head down to the reserve next door and tell those folks about it. They are going to be disappointed to know that after giving up their traditional ways for Christianity they are still eligible for burning in hell because of their diet.
Killing has consequences, regardless of the reasons. It is also impossible to speculate as the the fruits of karma and yes that will make one go mad. The Buddha even specifically said doing that will make you go mad. It is one of the "unconjecturables". Killing has consequences, regardless of the circumstances. It does not matter if the person is nice or mean, there are still consequences. You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism and the Buddha taught. This is why the Buddha's monks were forbidden from hunting for food and forbidden from accepting meat "when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the them)". You can believe whatever you want, but this is what the Buddha taught.
Killing has consequences, regardless of the reasons. It is also impossible to speculate as the the fruits of karma and yes that will make one go mad. The Buddha even specifically said doing that will make you go mad. It is one of the "unconjecturables". Killing has consequences, regardless of the circumstances. It does not matter if the person is nice or mean, there are still consequences. You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism and the Buddha taught. This is why the Buddha's monks were forbidden from hunting for food and forbidden from accepting meat "when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the them)". You can believe whatever you want, but this is what the Buddha taught.
Gee, I don't personally know a single Buddhist who has "gone mad".
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well then he was right, because obviously people listened to what he said.....
The results of karma can be seen. Speculating about about how the results of karma will affect a future you after death is guess work and could drive you mad I suppose.
As I pointed out as an example of karma the way it should be viewed by me. The salmon were dependent on certain amount of predation by first nations people. Take it away and the consequences echo out through the ecosystem. Everything is involved from the forest to the smallest plankton. If they overfished they would feel the effects four years later with weak returns. A poor seasons catch could affect them for years. Their birth rate could drop and a small band might find itself too weak to survive in a hostile environment. Not to mention the effect on the bears and eagles and such. You know what I mean. The balance of nature.
Fish expect to killed. The whole system works that way. Just because I am human does not mean I am exempt from being part of it. Humans do have more responsibility because we have the means to upset the balance so badly. If I try to act in harmony with nature and with respect or reverence, then I should be as blameless as any other predator. If I am killing mindlessly, only thinking about the things I can buy, or revelling in the killing and butchering, and not seeing the fish as a living being but a toy for my amusement, then my thoughts are out of my control and I will suffer in samsara. Knocked around by cause and effect and blaming everyone and everything for my misfortune. I might blame the devil or even chaulk it up to bad karma from a previous life.
As a consumer, it's not easy to know what the effects of your purchases are overall. Not buying meat is pretty safe bet to be sure you are not buying into something evil. For someone who wants to do the research, I'm certain that one can buy meat and fish products that can be consumed without guilt or worry.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Fish expect to be killed"..... wait.... what? An animal's instinct is one of survival and self-preservation.... nothing expects to be killed, but they actively strive to avoid it.....
I was vegan for 2 years. I was very attached to the way of veganism and life was not easy. Later I ate meat again for a while. Now I am 90% vegetarian. I eat meat in social circumstances where vegetarian meals is not readily available. I am still trying to become true vegetarian one day.
My weight didn't change much at all between eating meat and not eating meat, only a few lbs.
Problem of eating meats as relate to Buddhism: 1.It's taught in Mahayana that if we eat the meat this life and it's possible we'll become that kind animal and being killed to repay the debt. 2. It increases sexual desire. It's the one of the cause of samsara.
That being said. Not all people can become vegetarian, so don't force it too hard. It's like it's wrong to force a lion to become a vegetarian. Inability to live without meat is sometimes result of karma. Even that, you can choose to eat less meat and more plant based food. That's upward spiral.
"Fish expect to be killed"..... wait.... what? An animal's instinct is one of survival and self-preservation.... nothing expects to be killed, but they actively strive to avoid it.....
I guess I could have been more clear. Thought that the previous paragraph spelled it out. A salmon can lay up to 10,000 eggs. Less than 10 adults will return to spawn. If too many come back there is over spawning which can damage the eggs and harm the run. Female Quillback rockfish bear up to half a million live young once a year. All things being equal there only needs to be two survivors to keep the population stable.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
yes, right....that's still about as far removed from "Fish expect to be killed" as any comment could be. Natural selection and survival of the fittest is how Nature works. Man comes along and gaily buggers that effective formula perfectly - both within the animal kingdom and the human one..... and that is why we have dwindling numbers of some animal species, on the one hand, and an overblown growth of the human population, on the other.....
Killing has consequences, regardless of the reasons. It is also impossible to speculate as the the fruits of karma and yes that will make one go mad. The Buddha even specifically said doing that will make you go mad. It is one of the "unconjecturables". Killing has consequences, regardless of the circumstances. It does not matter if the person is nice or mean, there are still consequences. You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism and the Buddha taught. This is why the Buddha's monks were forbidden from hunting for food and forbidden from accepting meat "when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the them)". You can believe whatever you want, but this is what the Buddha taught.
Gee, I don't personally know a single Buddhist who has "gone mad".
I know plenty of them! They post here all the time. "Mad" from the Buddha's standpoint it quite different from most other people.
But seriously though, to try to figure out the precise results of karma is impossible.
AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
As for killing, the Buddha spoke extensively about it and none of it was good.
Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: What, householder friends, is the Dhamma explanation befitting to oneself? Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness & do not like any suffering. If someone were to take my life, it would neither be pleasing nor agreeable to me. If I kill whatever another being: One who also wishes to live, who also does not wish to die, who also desires happiness & who also dislike suffering, that would neither be pleasant nor acceptable to that other being either... What is displeasing and disagreeable to me, is also displeasing and disagreeable to any other being too. How can I inflict upon another being what is displeasing and disagreeable to myself? Having reflected repeatedly thus, then gradually:
1: He/she will carefully avoid all destruction of any life-form whatsoever... 2: He/she will persuade others also to abstain from all destruction of any life... 3: He/she will speak praising harmlessness and avoidance of all & any killing...
In exactly this way is this good bodily behaviour purified in three respects!!!
Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:353] section 55: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 7: To the people at the Bamboo gate...
HARMLESSNESS AVOIDS THE ULTIMATE WRONG! All sentient beings feel pain from violence. All sentient beings fear death. Seeing other beings are like oneself; Treating other beings like oneself; One should never ever harm nor kill ... Dhammapada 129
Whoever harms the harmless & innocent beings, upon such very fool, pain of evil promptly return as dust thrown against the wind. Dhammapada 125
Whoever injures, with weapon or stick, beings searching for their happiness - when after death - seeking same happiness, such fool never finds it! Dhammapada 131
Whoever never injures, with weapon nor stick, beings searching for their happiness - when after death - seeking same happiness, such clever & kind one always gain it! Dhammapada 132
The Noble is not one who injures living beings. The Noble is one who never injures living beings. Dhammapada 270
Ever are the true disciples of the Buddha well awake & quite aware. Constantly they meditate both day & night on Harmlessness. Dhammapada 300
The one who has left violence, who never harm any being, whether moving are stationary, who never kill nor causes to kill, such one, harmless, is a Holy One. Dhammapada 405
The one who is friendly among the hostile, who is harmless among the violent, who is detached among the greedy, such one is a Holy One. Dhammapada 406
Comments
But even then, eating isn't the same as killing (and thus isn't breaking the first precept)...
Spiny
IMHO, you have a strong viewpoint, and you are attached to the idea that everyone should share that viewpoint.
And yet, what I have seen on this and other Buddhist forums is that this is one of the most debated everyday life issues in Buddhism. Even living in Thailand, the country with the largest percentage of Buddhists in the world (95%+), I've yet to personally meet a Buddhist who didn't eat meat, including monks.
That's not to say it's right, or wrong. It's to say it's a debatable point.
Do whatever you believe is right.
And so will I.
:hiding:
LOL
And even if you didn't kill it yourself, you're supporting the people who do kill the animal and are the reason the killing of the being happens
Unless of course there is no other option than to eat meat to survive. Which is not the case most of the time
And look - the answer may well simply come back as - "because I like it."
and nobody - but nobody - has the right to tell someone that's not a valid, legitimate acceptable or pertinent reason.
it's a reason.
and not one anyone else has a right to judge.
We're not the food police here.
if people eat meat because they like it - then non-meat eaters should deal with it.
vegetarians don't have the monopoly on virtue.
they simply don't eat meat.
When I listen to some vegetarians -- which it is their free choice to be -- I feel the same as I feel when I hear evangelical born-again Christians. Some of them have to force their beliefs on everyone else.
So I think it is "right" over here. Vegetarians have nothing to hide either. But they know better than to tell a first nations food fisherman that he is doing something immoral when supplying food to the band.
Spiny
Main reason or my vegetarianism is factory farming, and all of the suffering from its byproducts. Second reason is to uphold the first precept. Just my own personal view.
Saw the movie Earthlings prior to my vegetarianism and it had a profound effect on me. Not for the squeamish. Anyone else see this?
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:[46][47][48]
Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
Do you have a more fulfilling life for keeping the precepts as you see them?
Do you have greater realization than someone who kills to feed his family? How can you tell?
Have you seen hunters, farmers or fishermen suffering for their behavior? In every case?
Let's hear about your experience in the world with these people.
It wasn't taking life that brought the downfall of the first nations people on the coast. It was Europeans imposing their ways and religion on them.
Don't get me wrong. I support anyones choice to live by whatever precepts they want.
And I don't support many people's view that beings lives are for playing with as in sport fishing.
Not all farmers or fishermen are respectful of beings lives either. But many are.
but let's be careful about differentiating between observation and criticism.
To borrow a well-known phrase, "Let he who has no sin....."
For me it's very much a moral/ethical issue rather than a karmic one. And I'm very well aware it's my personal opinion.
But for me, I just don't understand how people can justify animal cruelty. I'm certainly not a person who is perfect, nor have I ever claimed to be. Consumers who buy McDonald's/KFC while knowing the hideous practices that go on, well, no- I don't understand that.
"The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell."
And one can choose to believe that or not. But if you ask for "empirical evidence" of the fruits of karma in some individual circumstance, you won't find it because that "evidence" is impossible to obtain. What is possible to obtain is simply that actions always have consequences. That can't be proven as there are several accounts of killers, even murderers, getting enlightenment, but they all abandon the killing along the way. Not necessarily, that is a personal choice. Mass murderer Milarepa got enlightenment. But it is always beneficial to simply know that actions have consequences, regardless of the circumstances.
If someone is ignorant of the facts of modern factory farming they will buy their meat unaware that any being has suffered. If they become aware of those facts, they may jump straight to the conclusion that eating meat equals supporting murderers.
If you read the Buddha's words it is clear that he is describing a mental state of the killer that does not apply to everyone who kills beings. If someone never has personal contact with any farmers or fishermen, or people from a culture who depend on meat or fish for survival, then they might not know the whole story.
I don't know any farmers but I know many fishermen and first nations people personally. Some are as the Buddha described, many are not.
Many fishermen have great love and appreciation of nature and animals of all kinds. I have known several who are marine biologists. Some work in creek restoration and salmon enhancement programs. Or are active in local hatcheries. Most of us are intimately aquainted with the ocean, the fish and their life cycles and are concerned about conservation. Most are not brutal, bloody handed killers without mercy.
Speaking for the First Nations people and their relationship to the fish is not my place except to say that it is safe to assume some things. For many thousands of years the salmon and the people inhabited the area together. The salmon runs depend on a certain amount of mortality to prevent over spawning and to keep runs strong. People were a part of that. And First Nations people were and are dependent on salmon and other fish and their right to catch and eat fish has been written into the constitution ahead of all other users in recognition of that fact. People and fish were and to some extent still are, interdependent.
There are several organizations that can provide info on which fish species are being harvested sustainably for people who want to know where their food is coming from.
As for Karma. I does not make any sense to me that someone can live a happy, full life, develop realization, be loved by many and die peacefully then go straight to hell after death. But I am not going to tell anyone what they should believe.
First, because despite the somewhat unanimous viewpoint of what karma is on this forum (that is in one's own mind), in other Buddhist groups you will find many -- perhaps even a majority -- who feel it is an unexplained process from outside the individual. I think to a degree, that is based on the difference between "old world Buddhism" and "new world Buddhism".
Second, but I often hear people on this forum sort of bragging about how "scientific" Buddhism is compared to other religions. I've always disagreed with that, and this current discussion is a good example of why. If Buddhism really is scientific, then Buddhists would not accept karma, and Robot describes why that would be the case.
Third, "we" tend to make a big deal about the concept that one shouldn't just accept any teaching (blah, blah, blah). Okay, fine. You haven't proven karma to me. Apparently you haven't proven karma to Robot...at least in a satisfactory way (if I'm reading him right).
So what is my bottom line. I'm open to the concept of karma, but as yet, no one has proven it to me. So I'm at the very least a heavy skeptic here. But there are lots of other principles of Buddhism that I can accept.
The Story of a Fisherman Named Ariya
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Harming a living being always has consequences.
Jesus said that only through him will a person meet his father (or something like that). My Christian friends believe that, and it has made them into the men they are, and I will never attempt to alter their view even if it means I'm going to hell in their eyes.
Many Christians also believe that anyone who has not had the benefit of hearing the word of god is doomed to burn. Hence the atrocities committed on first nations people in his name.
The reason I am bringing this up is obvious I know.
The parable you have quoted is aimed at giving direction to those on the Buddhist path. It is a powerful message. Buddhists can gain purification and attain realization by following these teachings. I support anyone who lives by it.
Still, In a way it contradicts his words in your previous post, in that in this case the fisherman, (killer) had purified himself to point that attracted the Buddha's attention, and he only needed a nudge to attain stream entry. He had arrived at the point where falling to a lower state is no longer possible. And killed beings right up to that point. The negative karma that he had performed was offset somehow. There must be other factors at work here.
Another thing that bothers me about the view that the karma of taking beings lives for food will always produce negative results is this. As I said several times so far, if those results are not felt during life, it is a matter of faith to accept that they will be experienced later by another being, even if it calls itself me. It's hard to believe that a person with some discernment must accept this view simply because it is written.
Because I was born into fortunate circumstances in my life, am I to assume that a previous being took no lives? The math does not add up.
So I am not to think about these things at the pain of going mad. And accept that because it has been spoken, that terrible things will happen if I continue on this path. Against all evidence to the contrary.
I better head down to the reserve next door and tell those folks about it. They are going to be disappointed to know that after giving up their traditional ways for Christianity they are still eligible for burning in hell because of their diet.
As I pointed out as an example of karma the way it should be viewed by me. The salmon were dependent on certain amount of predation by first nations people. Take it away and the consequences echo out through the ecosystem. Everything is involved from the forest to the smallest plankton.
If they overfished they would feel the effects four years later with weak returns. A poor seasons catch could affect them for years. Their birth rate could drop and a small band might find itself too weak to survive in a hostile environment. Not to mention the effect on the bears and eagles and such. You know what I mean. The balance of nature.
Fish expect to killed. The whole system works that way. Just because I am human does not mean I am exempt from being part of it. Humans do have more responsibility because we have the means to upset the balance so badly. If I try to act in harmony with nature and with respect or reverence, then I should be as blameless as any other predator.
If I am killing mindlessly, only thinking about the things I can buy, or revelling in the killing and butchering, and not seeing the fish as a living being but a toy for my amusement, then my thoughts are out of my control and I will suffer in samsara. Knocked around by cause and effect and blaming everyone and everything for my misfortune. I might blame the devil or even chaulk it up to bad karma from a previous life.
As a consumer, it's not easy to know what the effects of your purchases are overall. Not buying meat is pretty safe bet to be sure you are not buying into something evil. For someone who wants to do the research, I'm certain that one can buy meat and fish products that can be consumed without guilt or worry.
An animal's instinct is one of survival and self-preservation....
nothing expects to be killed, but they actively strive to avoid it.....
Later I ate meat again for a while. Now I am 90% vegetarian. I eat meat in social circumstances where vegetarian meals is not readily available. I am still trying to become true vegetarian one day.
My weight didn't change much at all between eating meat and not eating meat, only a few lbs.
Problem of eating meats as relate to Buddhism:
1.It's taught in Mahayana that if we eat the meat this life and it's possible we'll become that kind animal and being killed to repay the debt.
2. It increases sexual desire. It's the one of the cause of samsara.
That being said. Not all people can become vegetarian, so don't force it too hard. It's like it's wrong to force a lion to become a vegetarian. Inability to live without meat is sometimes result of karma. Even that, you can choose to eat less meat and more plant based food. That's upward spiral.
A salmon can lay up to 10,000 eggs. Less than 10 adults will return to spawn. If too many come back there is over spawning which can damage the eggs and harm the run. Female Quillback rockfish bear up to half a million live young once a year. All things being equal there only needs to be two survivors to keep the population stable.
Natural selection and survival of the fittest is how Nature works.
Man comes along and gaily buggers that effective formula perfectly - both within the animal kingdom and the human one.....
and that is why we have dwindling numbers of some animal species, on the one hand, and an overblown growth of the human population, on the other.....
some brains are enormous... the whale shark for example, has quite a large one.....
But seriously though, to try to figure out the precise results of karma is impossible.
AN 4.77
PTS: A ii 80
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
As for killing, the Buddha spoke extensively about it and none of it was good.
Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
What, householder friends, is the Dhamma explanation befitting to oneself?
Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: I am one who wishes
to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness & do not like any suffering.
If someone were to take my life, it would neither be pleasing nor agreeable to me.
If I kill whatever another being: One who also wishes to live, who also does not
wish to die, who also desires happiness & who also dislike suffering, that would
neither be pleasant nor acceptable to that other being either...
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me, is also displeasing and disagreeable
to any other being too. How can I inflict upon another being what is displeasing
and disagreeable to myself? Having reflected repeatedly thus, then gradually:
1: He/she will carefully avoid all destruction of any life-form whatsoever...
2: He/she will persuade others also to abstain from all destruction of any life...
3: He/she will speak praising harmlessness and avoidance of all & any killing...
In exactly this way is this good bodily behaviour purified in three respects!!!
Source (edited extract):
The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. [V:353]
section 55: Sotāpattisamyutta. Thread 7: To the people at the Bamboo gate...
HARMLESSNESS AVOIDS THE ULTIMATE WRONG!
All sentient beings feel pain from violence.
All sentient beings fear death.
Seeing other beings are like oneself;
Treating other beings like oneself;
One should never ever harm nor kill ...
Dhammapada 129
Whoever harms the harmless & innocent beings,
upon such very fool, pain of evil promptly return
as dust thrown against the wind.
Dhammapada 125
Whoever injures, with weapon or stick, beings
searching for their happiness - when after death -
seeking same happiness, such fool never finds it!
Dhammapada 131
Whoever never injures, with weapon nor stick, beings
searching for their happiness - when after death -
seeking same happiness, such clever & kind one
always gain it!
Dhammapada 132
The Noble is not one who injures living beings.
The Noble is one who never injures living beings.
Dhammapada 270
Ever are the true disciples of the Buddha
well awake & quite aware. Constantly they
meditate both day & night on Harmlessness.
Dhammapada 300
The one who has left violence,
who never harm any being,
whether moving are stationary,
who never kill nor causes to kill,
such one, harmless, is a Holy One.
Dhammapada 405
The one who is friendly among the hostile,
who is harmless among the violent,
who is detached among the greedy,
such one is a Holy One.
Dhammapada 406