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.
Food and Karma
I have recently posted on Veggie Thread. But in reading "words of my perfect teacher" im really starting to see that telling myself the lie of conventional label "hamburger" is to convince myself of inherent existence. It seems "hamburger" like is inherently different than the slaughter of animals for the idea of food , or for me sometimes i am happy of killing, not conciously, but implications of enjoying "burger" makes me say "mmm" . This is pleasure and against the idea of real ethics. For if i enjoy "burger" but animal doesn't achieve happiness making "burger" what positive Karma comes from this? I am conflicted with this because now just a trivial issue such as food is becoming a major fault in realation to my understanding of emptiness, meditation and even third turning teachings of the vajrayana.
In further reading WMPT (words of my perfect teacher) i seen that it is also wrong view. Because eating meat without mindfulness or awareness. a subtle nihlistic view that there is no negative actions, no karma, no suffering etc. from the eating of the animal flesh. All this is making me feel bad.
Also if i don't agree im infering again that the rebirths in the six realms are also a joke or not true. Since self tells me that they aren't to be taken literally it convinces me that karma isn't literal by inferance. Help me someone!
In further reading WMPT (words of my perfect teacher) i seen that it is also wrong view. Because eating meat without mindfulness or awareness. a subtle nihlistic view that there is no negative actions, no karma, no suffering etc. from the eating of the animal flesh. All this is making me feel bad.
Also if i don't agree im infering again that the rebirths in the six realms are also a joke or not true. Since self tells me that they aren't to be taken literally it convinces me that karma isn't literal by inferance. Help me someone!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This story is important . In the Tibetan Book of the Dead this exact thing is talked about at the moment of death and how a person is forced to take accountability for ones actions by the weighing of the pebbles. What a fortunate introduction to this moment by Patrul Rinpoche
Words of My Perfect Teacher discusses the negativity of practitioners accepting meat of animals that were killed specifically for them.
The notion of going to the pub and buying a juicy burger is completely different.
For some people. :hiding:
this is wise reflection (sabbasava sutta) where non-arisen pleasure does not arise and arisen pleasure disappears
as far as my understanding goes, 'i'm really starting to see' means there is still to go
and 'it seems' mean it is not sure yet
however, 'i am really starting to see' and 'it seems' indicate we are sure of the method whatever we are practising and without doubt we can continue the method
this is unwise reflection where non-arisen ill-will arises and arisen ill-will increases
the pleasure we gain at a certain moment is our own kamma-vipaka and we can not do anything about it now but if we are wise we will be able not to make new kamma (kamma formation)
seeing the burger we see the animal (wrong view as you described and this is avijja paccaya sankara) , again reflect unwisely so brings vexation as I am conflicted with this because now just a trivial issue such as food is becoming a major fault in realation to my understanding of emptiness, meditation and even third turning teachings of the vajrayana.
what we have learned so far in any tradition is an advantage for us to continue the Path should not consider as a disadvantage wise reflection we feel bad because we do unwise reflection
No.
How can you be so sure?
In the book it says that i need the help of a Sangha to overcome this 'dukkha' . I am working toward being accountable to that idea through you all. Hopefully this thread can become a helpful place for those that are struggling with the same problems or atleast help me to have the experience of a happy comfortable weight. I know it sounds selfish and is way more practical than my previous posts. This is my opportunity to connect to the Sangha. I hope that the words and compassion we are all trying to live can extend to me and hopefuly others with this issue of overeating and the suffering it brings.
Just because you don't witness the animals suffering doesn't make it completely different. If you eat meat then you surely must take some responsibility for the death of the animal and therefore its suffering.
metta to all
When you start feeling uncomfortable with eating meat then it may be time to start reducing it. I'm a vegetarian myself, the cause (of vegetarianism) for myself was that I read something written by the Karamapa and as I already had the seed for vegetarianism, the Karmapa merely supplied the water (compassion).
What is the **most** important factor is how you feel. If you feel bad then you are definitely accumulating negative karma. It is one thing to accumulate in ignorance, it is another to accumulate wilfully. The more you feel its wrong the more it actually is, ie. guilt is often more harmful than the initial negative action. This is showing that, it may just be possible, that you have the seed for vegetarianism, or at least the seed for minimisation of meat consumption. If you did not have a problem then there is no need to become a vegetarian. I, personally, do not advocate vegetarianism for others, it is a purely personal choice.
Really, you can get opinions of others, but its a decision that only you can make.
Here's a story: I knew someone once who was one of the biggest meat eaters that I know. He would eat mostly meat, some bread and a little bit of vegies. When at the pub, steak was on the menu. He ate heaps and heaps of chicken as well. He described himself proudly as a meatitarian. He then became Buddhist, and was thankful that vegetarianism was not required. However, over time the issue nagged on his subconsciousness. It was OK to eat meat but he didn't feel quite right about it anyway. Then one year he said "at the end of this year I will become vegetarian". None of his family or friends really believed it would happen, as there were few people they knew who ate less vegetables and more meat! Yet, the following year he kept to his spoken word and became vegetarian (once you say something out loud to others the commitment level increases and its a lot harder to go back on your word). He has been vegetarian for several years now and hardly remembers what meat tastes like. And the weird thing was, he said it was easy.
Cheers,
On the other hand, I do disagree completely with your assertion.
Oh, I think there was a misunderstanding. What I was saying originally was that, for some people, having a burger at the pub is not different from having an animal killed specifically for you.
How?
I completely agree with the ethical view that you are sharing.
I personally dont feel that we can apply the same argument to karma.
In my opinion, purchasing meat is unethical, however, I dont see any negative karma unless a specific being is killed with the intent of being given to you directly.
Or you kill it yourself or order the killing.
Why not?
I just think it's funny when we post about how sickened we are by other's "non-Buddhist behaviours" when that judgmental attitude and action fueled by disgust and aversion is in-and-of-itself not-so-Buddhist.
Turns out Buddhism's an ever-changing developmental path and the world isn't so black-and-white, and none of us "follow the teachings" flawlessly (if we did, we'd be Awake).
Are you saying that some unethical acts have negative karmic consequences and other unethical acts don't? I don't see how that can be true. If it is true, how does one tell which unethical acts have negative karmic consequences and which ones don't? Of course, simply purchasing meat would not have nearly the same consequences as going out and killing it yourself, especially if doing so was unnecessary to survive. However, I can't see how there would be no consequences at all.
OK I'm pushing this to make a point. The karma of eating is very complex. I eat a little meat. I was a vegetarian for many years. Meat bought at the market was not killed specifically for me, so the karma of killing is quite distant. However, supporting a slaughter industry is something to consider from an ethical standpoint rather than a karmic standpoint. Since we have many food choices these days, eating meat is not compassion. But neither is being disgusted or angry or hateful.
The post in question was removed for a specific reason, and already specifically clarified as NOT being hateful. It should not have been posted at all.
Huh? What the heck is karma?
No matter how people try to dumb down the teachings on karma, they are absolutely not simply "moral" teachings.
In order for karma to be involved with the act of eating another animal you either have to kill it yourself with intent and satisfaction, or, you must have someone else kill it for you with intent and satisfaction when the killing is completed. It is simply impossible for the necessary elements to be in place for the buying of meat at the grocery store or a restaurant to accrue negative karma.
That said, I believe that it is socially, ecologically, and compassionately irresponsible and unethical for people to buy/eat meat.
Also, its bad for us.
The elements you are referring to, as described in WMPT, are basis, intention, execution and completion, yes? Does it not also say that negative karma can also come about when only a couple of the elements are present and not necessarily all of them? Isn't that what the below is describing? Are none of the elements present buying it at a store?
Ask yourself honestly do you think that when a person eats a burger they do not contribute to that animals death ?
As a Buddhist I take full responsibility for my actions right and wrong and completely understand their consequences for me and the world I live in.
Maybe you could try this view for youself.
As you can guess I am a vegetarian.
metta to all
Why not simply point out where those actions are necessarily present in buying meat at the grocery store.
Jigme Lingpa's own work Treasury of Precious Qualities clearly states that all four must be present.
Jigme Lingpa was a vegetarian.
Eating meat, and killing a living being are distinctly different acts.
I dont eat meat.
My argument neither justifies or makes me feel better about anything.
I'm referring to the teachings and basic reasoning, not my personal dining habits.
I dont care if you are a vegetarian.
Your argument is completely irrational.
Not a single one.
I in no way advocate eating meat, but I find it completely irrational to assert that buying meat at a grocery store or restaurant leads to any karmic ripening that is similar to killing.
Purchasing is different than killing.
Meat is different than a sentient being.
The mind that purchases meat is thinking about food preparation.
The mind that kills is thinking about directly ending the life of another sentient being.
There is no way that buying a burger is the same or even remotely similar to killing a cow.
Does supporting gay rights make a person gay, too?
Do you take full responsibility for all the judging in the above post based solely on your own projections?
I mean, maybe he does eat meat, but I don't recall him actually stating so.
And yes, it's blatantly obvious you're a vegetarian and not because you're against meat-eating.
I don't know.
I would assume Treasury of Precious Qualities also states the reasoning behind why all 4 must be present, yes? If not, then it would be a waste of time reading it IMO.
Sure the reasoning is presented in the commentary. Its pretty obvious though if you ask me.
No basis, since its meat, not a sentient being.
No intention to kill since you cant kill meat.
No execution, obvious because of the first two, but once again since its meat, you cant kill it.
No completion, obvious because of the first two.
Also, its definitely not a waste of time to read. Its really a great book.
No, it's the chopped up dead body parts of what used to be a sentient being. I don't see how is it any different than going to a farm with a bunch of other people and saying give me some meat and then giving the guy some money, then they go out and kill the animal and make it into meat and come back and give it to you. In a marketplace situation, the only difference that they did it beforehand since they knew you and those other people were coming to get it. I simply cannot understand how intentionally giving money to a slaughterhouse does not have some karmic consequences, knowing full well what they are going to use the money for, when it is unnecessary to do so. Not that it matters that much though, because I never will understand that.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but you sounded like you were saying that a person who eats meat has no responibility for the death or suffering that the animal went through to end up as the meat eaten by the person. Where is the basic reasoning behing that ? Where is the rationality behind that point of view ?
This is fact, IF YOU EAT MEAT YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE ANIMALS DEATH, even if you don't think you are doing anything wrong, or wont accumalate negative karma for your actions, the fact still remains that YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE ANIMALS DEATH.
If you believe otherwise then you are only fooling yourself.
metta to all
I am not judging anyone, if someone wants to eat meat then fine it is their choice. All I am pointing out is that if you eat meat you are contributing to the animals suffering and death, which is a FACT is it not ? Well unless you have eaten the meat from an animal which died of natural causes of course. So why are people trying to hide this FACT for their own moral convenience. I mean if they think that eating meat is fine, then that is of course their choice, but they should not pass the blame for the animals death completely to others. They should take some responsibility them self.
I mean lets take an example, Hitler committed many war crimes , but how many people did he actually kill himself ? Does this mean he has no responsibility for those crimes committed in his name, but not actually by his hands ?
I think not, if someone belives a person eating meat has no responsibility for the death of the animal they should start to reflect on the how their actions really do effect the world they live in. Even if they are not vegetarian they must surely accept by eating meat they have contributed to the animals death.
I'm sorry but I do not get your point about gay rights. Being gay does not result in the suffering of a sentient being, not where I come from anyway. And Its is not that shenpen nangwa is a meat eater it is the statement made about eating meat that I am talking about.
And yes I am a vegatarian and of course I am against eating meat, However as I state above this is not my point, my point is the FACT that people contribute to the death of the animal when they eat meat. I just don't know why anyone would say otherwise.
Metta to all
Most people do just think "hungry, tastes good". I don't think it is the karma of killing either because there is no intention to kill, no actual act of killing by one's own hand, etc. I don't know exactly what the consequences would be or what you would call it but I find it hard to believe that there would be no consequences of any kind at all. But I think karma applies to more than just killing, stealing, lying, sex, drinking-drugs, etc. Maybe if the person was completely oblivious to the entire process then there would be none, but what if the person isn't? But then again, does simply being oblivious absolve one of the consequences of an action? Even if the answer is yes, I don't see how that would apply to a person who is not oblivious. For example, if someone looks at a hamburger and, instead of thinking "hamburger", they think "chopped up dead body parts of a sentient being who suffered great suffering", I think it would be a different situation from someone who says "hungry, tastes good, hamburger".
One's actions, thoughts, words, etc. and the consequences thereof.
I am talking about the difference between buying meat and killing from a karmic perspective, nothing more.
Your vegetarianism is influencing your Buddhism far more than Buddhism is influencing your vegetarianism.
Get off your soap box and pay attention.
Exactly.
The two mental states are completely different.
Again I respect your opinion and choice to live and view life the way you wish, but I completely disagree with your view on this issue.
metta to all sentient beings
Your making sweeping generalizations that are based on your emotional perspective, not reason or the teachings, and do not account for any gray area. Its just not as black and white as you are claiming it to be.
If the world functioned the way you are saying a person who goes to his or her mother-in-laws home for dinner with no knowledge of what is to be served and is given a dish with some meat in it would somehow accumulate negative karma for eating it.
There is absolutely no way that this could be the case.
You can disagree if you want but you arent disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the teachings.
"In some way," "some sort of," yadda yadda. Look at the way you struggle to label meat-eaters as murderers.
Eating meat obviously contributes to the death of an animal.
Now can you acknowledge, or will you ignore yet again, that eating a vegetable contributes "in some way" to the death of countless animals and creatures? Does that mean when you eat that vegetable that you had the intent to murder those creatures?
People often aren't even mindful of that, just as you're completely oblivious to the suffering caused through your own eating habits.
If someone gives you a gift and you refuse, is it then still your gift or does it go back to the giver?
I really was not thinking of it in terms of being reborn in hell, etc. But rather something more like "subconscious cognitive dissonance" or something similar to that where it would affect the person mentally without them even knowing about it and possibly causing problems that they are not even aware of, etc.
Its not the action alone. Even if it was the act of eating a burger is eating, not killing. Now, the implications of certain unethical or headless choices is another discussion that I think Valtiel has skillfully brought into the conversation.
however only because 3 of the 4 factors are present. I believe that it does have to create some kind of karma. It doesn't have the basis but all the others are there. Also it ties into wrong view. and stealing in someway by taking meat from a being . This may be out there but it feels right to me.