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.
Theravada and vegetariams—is purchasing meat equivalent to purchasing produce?
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
In Theravada, vegetarianism is not a requirement; however, does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no. Essentially, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that has been deliberately killed; but, the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases from the grocery store.
Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings, and harvesting them does not automatically entail the intentional "killing" of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it is conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate. In that sense, such a death does not entail the kamma of killing. In the case of meat, that is not the case. The animal must always be deliberately killed, which does entail the kamma of killing.
The main point that should be kept in mind here is that there is no kamma of killing in the case of accidentally killing insects while harvesting fruits or vegetables as long as there is s no intention to harm or kill the insects. In Pali, the word kamma itself means action. Therefore, the kamma of killing would be the action of killing. Furthermore, in AN 6.63, the Buddha says, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect."
I think that the Theravada Vinaya confirms this interpretation, stating that, "Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pacittiya offense." (Pc 61/420). In The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople, the Venerable Thanissaro summarizes this monastic rule, and explains that, "Intention is an essential factor here. For example, if a bhikkhu only intends to sweep a path but accidentally kills ants in the process, there is no offence because it is not deliberate."
So basically, purchasing meat from the grocery store does not ential the kamma of killing for the purchaser; however, a well-informed practitioner should be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat does not free one from the web of killing and death, but it would certainly help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that is built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.
Furthermore, if people choose to purchase fruits and vegetables that are certified organic, the chances that harmful pesticides were used on those products in order to kill insects is lowered since one of the requirements for organic certification is the avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs and genetically modified organisms. The more these kinds of products are purchased, the more the food industry will respond by changing their practices due to the greater demand.
In essence, the consumer is not powerless, and has a effect on how many animals are killed or even the manner of their deaths. When going to the super market, for example, that particular store keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers were to cease buying meat, the demand for meat would go down and less animals would need to be killed in order to meet that demand.
In addition, if the majority of consumers who did purchase meat were to purchase meat from companies that treated and killed the animals in a more humane fashion, then other companies would naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple. While there is nothing in Theravada that states this lifesytle choice is necessary or even preferred, I am drawn towards it.
All of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we as individuals wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It is a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable since they know that the animal has been killed by another person; but for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store.
Therefore, while I completely agree that the Buddha taught about personal responsibility first and foremost, that does not mean that we should simply turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Does that not also fall within the realm of personal responsibility? Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism in not a requirement, I do think that it is at least a compassionate option.
Sincerely,
Jason
In Theravada, vegetarianism is not a requirement; however, does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no. Essentially, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that has been deliberately killed; but, the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases from the grocery store.
Fruits and vegetables are not sentient beings, and harvesting them does not automatically entail the intentional "killing" of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it is conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate. In that sense, such a death does not entail the kamma of killing. In the case of meat, that is not the case. The animal must always be deliberately killed, which does entail the kamma of killing.
The main point that should be kept in mind here is that there is no kamma of killing in the case of accidentally killing insects while harvesting fruits or vegetables as long as there is s no intention to harm or kill the insects. In Pali, the word kamma itself means action. Therefore, the kamma of killing would be the action of killing. Furthermore, in AN 6.63, the Buddha says, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect."
I think that the Theravada Vinaya confirms this interpretation, stating that, "Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pacittiya offense." (Pc 61/420). In The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople, the Venerable Thanissaro summarizes this monastic rule, and explains that, "Intention is an essential factor here. For example, if a bhikkhu only intends to sweep a path but accidentally kills ants in the process, there is no offence because it is not deliberate."
So basically, purchasing meat from the grocery store does not ential the kamma of killing for the purchaser; however, a well-informed practitioner should be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat does not free one from the web of killing and death, but it would certainly help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that is built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.
Furthermore, if people choose to purchase fruits and vegetables that are certified organic, the chances that harmful pesticides were used on those products in order to kill insects is lowered since one of the requirements for organic certification is the avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs and genetically modified organisms. The more these kinds of products are purchased, the more the food industry will respond by changing their practices due to the greater demand.
In essence, the consumer is not powerless, and has a effect on how many animals are killed or even the manner of their deaths. When going to the super market, for example, that particular store keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers were to cease buying meat, the demand for meat would go down and less animals would need to be killed in order to meet that demand.
In addition, if the majority of consumers who did purchase meat were to purchase meat from companies that treated and killed the animals in a more humane fashion, then other companies would naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple. While there is nothing in Theravada that states this lifesytle choice is necessary or even preferred, I am drawn towards it.
All of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we as individuals wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It is a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable since they know that the animal has been killed by another person; but for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store.
Therefore, while I completely agree that the Buddha taught about personal responsibility first and foremost, that does not mean that we should simply turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Does that not also fall within the realm of personal responsibility? Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism in not a requirement, I do think that it is at least a compassionate option.
Sincerely,
Jason
0
Comments
No, not necessarily. While the majority of organic farmers probably use organic pesticides produced from plants, there are farmers that do not use any pesticides, and there products will usually have a label saying "No pesticides used". Another alternative is to buy genetically-modified crops that require little or no pesticide spraying at all.
Nevertheless, the point is not that there is any source of food that is 100% free from harming sentient beings, only that the consumer has the power to limit the amount of harm by exercising more discretion in their purchases. This is especially aimed at Buddhists who endeavor to practice the Noble Eightfold Path in a modern world economy.
Jason
All that is very fine and well, Elohim, but is watered down to let the consumer of meat off the hook, in the milk-toast way you put it here. I don't think the evil ramifications of meat-eating have to be put forth so daintily.
After all, it's not just the deaths of the animals that should be considered, but also their limited lifestyles, most often cramped and stifled. The consumer IS RESPONSIBLE for these things by his DEMANDS made evident by continual and predictable purchases.
But any talk of these things is bound to raise consciousness, and I salute Thee for that.
I think only a hard-core extremist would claim that meat-eating in all circumstances is evil. I have never yet encountered anyone who made such a fuss as that.
After all, it does happen that an animal is killed unintentionally. I'm sure this happens every day. Therefore, eating of the flesh of such an animal would presumably be free from the sin of killing.
Meat-eating is done, I think, on many levels.
A lot of people seem to revel in meat-eating. For instance, if they go out to get barbecue at a barbecue restaurant, quite often that place is full of pictures of pigs and such. Now, if I'm eating barbecue, I don't wish to be reminded of the fact that I'm eating pig. Portrayals of pigs would certainly take my appetite away. But those pictures and figures of pigs are there because the thought of consuming a pig heightens the appetites of a lot of people.
I think this idea of bad karma accruing by killing things is basically sound, as far as it goes. But it's not the isolated little instances of killing an animal here and there that really matters: It's the culture of killing and what effect that has on us and our children.
I think that this matter is worthy of consideration by all people and that people should strive to lessen their meat-eating as much as they can.
Say what you will, all that I am doing is offering some thoughts for people that are interested in reading them. I see no harm in trying to state possible ways of being more socially active without resorting to sensationalism.
That is why I said if the majority of consumers who purchase meat were to purchase meat from companies that treated and killed the animals in a more humane fashion, other companies would naturally follow suit due to the potential profitability of such practices.
Jason
The focus of my post was not to demonize meat eating or the meat industry because that is a pointless crusade. The truth is that abstaining from eating meat does not free one from the web of killing and death. Killing and death are awful facts of samsara that have the potential to arise because there are sentient beings whose minds are defiled by greed, hatred, and delusion. Besides removing oneself from the cycle of birth and death altogether, there are worldly solutions to these problems, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient being. In essence, besides escaping samsara, there are no perfect solutions. On top of that, condemning or demonizing another for their complicity means that we should also condemn and demonize ourselves as well. If we want to, we can find reasons to demonize internet usage. I doubt that most people are aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers, but one could reason that every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths. Shall we cease to visit NewBuddhist then?
Choosing to be more socially active in our respective practices is an admirable thing to do; nevertheless, we should never forget the very nature of samsara. In his introduction to The Four Nutriments of Life: An Anthology of Buddhist Texts, Nyanaponika Thera echoes, "If we wish to eat and live, we have to kill or tacitly accept that others do the killing for us. When speaking of the latter, we do not refer merely to the butcher or the fisherman. Also for the strict vegetarian's sake, living beings have to die under the farmer's plowshare, and his lettuce and other vegetables have to be kept free of snails and other "pests," at the expense of these living beings who, like ourselves, are in search of food. A growing population's need for more arable land deprives animals of their living space and, in the course of history, has eliminated many a species. It is a world of killing in which we live and have a part. We should face this horrible fact and remain aware of it in our Reflection on Edible Food. It will stir us to effort for getting out of this murderous world by the ending of craving for the four nutriments."
Sincerely,
Jason
I think that Elohim makes very valid points and that we should go a step further. Should we not realise that all those of us who pay taxes are, in effect, sponsors of the deaths in the theatres of war that we are funding?
If buying meat at the butcher's or the burger bar supports the death of food animals (and the destruction of the rainforests), how much more do we contribute to (and must take responsibility for) the death of women and children, the maiming of tens of thousands and the sending into exile of millions.
As time goes on and I become less ignorant, I recognise more possibilities and strive to remove them also.
Becoming a vegetarian was one of the very early things that I managed to do.
Because I cannot solve all the problems of existence now does not mean that I shouldn't do all that I can at this moment.
stuart
www.DanaBowl.com
I'm going to make a new thread on this topic. I would like to see what people have to say about it, but I don't want to thrust vegetarianism entirely off-course, as I think it deserves it's own discussion, too!