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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
0 of the 4 factors are present.
Of course... everything does...
What kind of "karma" and results are you imagining?
Can you elaborate?
Oh, jesus christ. Well obviously kamma works according to treederwright's far-out ideas that feel right to him. It's all written in stone. We'll all be reborn as cows.
basis is absent
attitude - 2 of 3 poisons (Attachment & Ignorance )
Performance - Another is making the performance for me ( Tsong Khapa says that it doesn't matter weather we do it or it's done for us ) to have the food
Culmination- Death of another (Tsongkhapa doesn't refer to another human) on account of performance.
This creates Negative Karma. I believe that Tsongkhapa knows what he is talking about. This is also the attitude of aversion when it comes to wrong view.
Tsongkhapa says this analytical meditation is neccessary to produce the force for the ideas to stay in conciousness, due to much ignorance and other faults of several reincarnations. These means are neccessary.
With no basis the other three are not present.
No sentient being ( basis ) , no intention to kill, since there is no being to kill (attitude), no performance (with no sentient being, there is no being to kill), no culmination (no being to kill, no killing).
Tsongkhapa does know what he is talking about.
Its up to us to understand what he is talking about.
In any of these circumstances if there is no basis for the negative action the other 3 conditions are immediately irrelevant.
The only reason basis doesn't apply is because your not intending to kill it, but the other 3 are present.
Nonsense.
I have received the complete lam rim commentary in person from more than one lineage holder, and in no way does Tsongkhapa or any other teacher( Gelug or other) assert that you can accumulate negative karma in relation to an object that does not exist.
No sentient being, no basis, no basis, no intent, no intent, no execution, no execution, no completion.
Its straight forward.
How can you accumulate negative karma in relation to an object that is not present?
The attitude of the three poisons comes into play if you are walking around thinking about killing all day. That is ignorance and anger directly affecting the mind, but is not the case when it comes to purchasing meat a grocery store or restaurant. The two situations are different.
So a pile of meat behind a glass case at the grocery store or a burger on your plate is a living being?
Thats the difference.
Since meat is not a living being and we are quite distant from the act of killing when we buy it in a store or restaurant there can be no way that the karma associated with purchasing meat and killing are equal.
Now, if we see a living being, say a cow and think to ourselves, "I wanna eat that cow". Then proceed to kill the cow, butcher it, and eat the meat, and then feel satisfied with our actions, then and only then, do we have all four conditions for the karma of killing and stealing.
That all said, I certainly dont advocate meat eating.
I think we can make the ethical decision not to eat meat based upon different reasons, whether or not the karmic implications are dire.
Rejoicing in the virtue of others and inspiring them to do good are a different discussion. Intention in those cases becomes primary, and rejoicing directly confronts and diminishes our own negative patterns of jealousy.
If your talking about generalizations then I would say you have made a lot in this post yourself.
Your point about going to dinner is absurd, if a person has no knowledge of what they are eating then of course they have no intention, on the other hand if the person knows it is meat that they are eating and they still eat it, then in my opinion there is intention, no body forces anybody to eat anything they do not want to.
metta to all sentient beings
When a person eats meat they know exactly that an animal has been killed in order for them to eat meat. There is no doubt about this , it is a FACT 100% there is clear intention and knowledge that by eating meat an animal was killed for the person to be able to do it.
However how exactly do you know that an animal has been killed when eating a plant ? I think it would be impossible to say 100 % that an animal died because this plant has been eaten, and therefore there is no intention. When someone eats a plant they have no knowledge of any animal being killed because of it, whereas this is completely the opposite for a person who eats meat.
There is a DIRECT connection between eating meat and an animal being killed.
So this argument has no foundation in my opinion.
metta to all sentient beings
People eat with the knowledge that something is meat. Often they don't eat with the knowledge that it was once a living being. I don't mean they don't know where meat comes from. I mean that in the act of preparing their food and consuming it, that knowledge isn't actively present. Much like we are all aware that things are impermanent and yet we cling to them as if they might possibly last forever. There is no intention to harm another in the act of purchasing and eating the meat. There is no "killing karma."
I repeat:
Your point about going to dinner is absurd, if a person has no knowledge of what they are eating then of course they have no intention, on the other hand if the person knows it is meat that they are eating and they still eat it, then in my opinion there is intention, no body forces anybody to eat anything they do not want to.
Any acknowledgment of this? No? Still waiting...
I just explained to you...
This is absolutely ignorant if you think that nothing has to die in for you to eat. Do you grow all your own foods on land free of any wildlife, without pesticides, and float on air to pick them from your garden, and dust the bugs gently off, and...? Life has to die in order for you to eat, you cold-blooded murderer. Oh, right, so because you're not eating all the bugs and little animals that died for your salad, because they themselves weren't killed specifically for your salad, that makes it ok.
I personally eat whatever. Often meat repulses me now because I am mindful of what it actually is whereas I used to disassociate... however when I watch my neighbour set out rabbit traps because they keep eating his raspberry plant, and poison to keep the bugs and slugs off his vegetables, I realize that death happens in both industries. I eat meat, but I choose where I buy it from. I eat veggies, but my room mate and I try to grow as much as our little garden allows. I make my own efforts in my own way. Are your actions inherently compassionate (in Buddhism, recognizing the desire of all beings to be free of suffering), and mine are not?
??? I'm not talking nicely to you? My feelings of frustration and anger?
Projecting?
But if it makes someone feel better by passing the blame for the death of the animal onto some other person who actually did the killing and to not think about the animal being killed when they are eating meat then this is their choice as is the action of eating meat. It doesn't change the fact that a person has knowledge of the source of the meat and therefore there must be intention in this case.
I ask you if a human was killed by another human who was not mindful of their action would they not get any negative karma as they were not mindful ? In my opinion they would.
metta to all sentient beings
metta to all
Can you prove 100% that an animal died for the plant that I ate ? Of course you cannot, Whereas I can prove 100% that an animal died for every piece of meat. DIRECT CONNECTION , MEAT=ANIMAL SUFFERING not a MAYBE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN AN INSECT WHICH DIED, there is a difference my friend. When I grow and pick then eat a plant there is absolutly no intention what so ever that I wish an insect to be killed, if an insect is killed then this is unfortunate but still no intention on my behalf. Now when a person eats meat was there no intention that the animal would be killed for that person to eat the meat, of course there was intention !
And you do not know what food I eat or how I obtain it, so I think your sarcastic comments are a bit out of order. Please respect my opinion as I respect yours, I maybe disagree with it but I still respect it.
metta to all beings
metta to all sentient beings
People get heated under the collar.
Knock it off, all of you, and be sensible.
here here
Surely as a practicing Buddhist you've examined how out-of-control our thoughts and mind actually are? Every moment you eat are you thinking about where each of your vegetables was sourced from? Are you mindful as you fall asleep that the bed you sleep on was once a tree? Every moment you spend on the internet are you mindful of the energy you're wasting? Do you live and breath the truth of anicca and anatta in every moment of your life, or are you aware of those truths but forget them throughout your daily life? Are you choosing to not be mindful of these things or does it just happen? Is part of Buddhism not to develop mindfulness?
Has a meat-eater here made that argument?
Like what kind of "negative karma"?
I disagree. Just because you believe the world is flat does not make it so and no matter how hard anyone tries they just won't find the end of it or fall off...
There is no "could have been." Even with every breath you take and every step you take, there is death. Denying this is just pure ignorance, denial, and wishful thinking.
The same is generally true of meat-eaters.
You just don't seem to get that a person can know that meat comes from animals but be entirely oblivious to this in the everyday act of preparing and eating meat. There is a distance in one's mind from the burger on their plate and the cow at the slaughterhouse. As well, if a person, as in another example, goes to dinner and is served meat, even if they're mindful of where it came from, there was no intent on that person's part for that animal to die.
Intent: "the state of mind with which an act is done."
There are no thoughts of harm or murder. To continue to insist there are when other people, both meat-eaters and vegans, are telling you otherwise, makes you irrational and living in a world in which you're taking your fantasies as reality.
It doesn't matter because no matter how you obtain your food or what you eat there is death involved. That is life.
You respect someone you consider a murderer? Really? I'm surprised that a bit of sarcasm is offensive yet you seem to have superglued your Caps Lock button down for this conversation.
This is stretching credibility a bit far.
And I'm an occasional meat-eater.
A meat-eater may not have the intention of having an animal die for his supper. A meat-eater may not even be physically capable of killing, or cannot bring themselves to do it.
But even by eating meat, there is a silent consent to the action of killing the animal, in order to be nourished by it.
if I 'intend' to eat meat, then I'm mindful of the fact that something is going to have to lose its life, in order for me to do so.
The simple fact is, whatever you do, own it.
Don't justify, clarify or make excuses, one way or the other.
Abstain from criticism and condemnation.
Just own your own actions, and be responsible for them.
Full stop and end of story.
And we should all own that too.
I'm prepared to keep this thread open, providing people desist from personal baiting or ad hominem criticisms.
"Hate the sin but not the sinner"
Discuss the comments but not the poster.
No. Perhaps you are, and we all should be, but try walking up to all the people in a McDonald's restaurant and ask them if they've thought about he fact that an animal had to die for their meal since they sat down and ordered. I can almost guarantee the response you'll get.
Ah.
Ok.
I take your point.
I was rather narrowly speaking from the specific perspective of a Buddhist doing this.
I wasn't including the population in general, which I admit was somewhat blinkered of me.
Let me say again I have nothing against people who eat meat, it is their choice how they live their life. But my opinion is that they must take some responsability for the animals death.
Anyway I seem like I am banging my head against a brick wall talking to you. Lets agree to disagree, So I will end this wishing you metta.
metta to all
You're reasoning on this is really weird.
Your arguments have been refuted over and over in this thread by more than one poster and you just dont seem to be paying attention.
Valtiel's reasoning and reference to Buddhist teachings is totally sound. Yours is not.
I dont suppose my understanding of the teachings is better than yours, but, since you have not responded to any of the posts that refer to them and you have not referred to them in any way on your own, its not hard to draw the conclusion that you dont know your ass from your elbow.
You should actually read other peoples posts, rather than repeating the same tired arguments over and over again.
However, earlier in this Thread you argued that:
The point is, this same logic can be applied to your eating habits, but when I do so, you reject said logic as being unsound.
Perhaps your position is fair, but your reasoning is terribly flawed.
My examples were not to demonstrate intention, but mindfulness of what is taking place, as you argued that in the act of eating meat a person must be aware that death took place and this is simply not true, even to a person who knows that cows go to slaughter and meat comes from that process. And where there is no awareness of the death there can be no desire or intent for the animal to die. I'm not one to point out logical fallacies in debate but you really do continue to attack Straw Men.
Anyway I wish you peace and happiness in your life.
Metta to all
At this point we are just going to run around in circles.
You can think what you want, as unfortunate and ridiculous as it may be, its your opinion and you're entitled to it.
What has been stated over and over again is that the karma associated with BUYING meat and KILLING are different. You seem to be missing that still.
Not sure where you are getting the "superiority complex over animals" bit, but if weird assumptions about my views on animals make you feel better about your ridiculous arguments go right ahead.
You may wish to practice right speech with mindfulness in the future.
Again I will not reply to any more of your posts as you clearly do not respect my opinion.
metta to all
My quoting your last post in the post you just responded to would indicate that I have. I am not asking nor expecting you to respond.
So you're going to start playing the victim now?
Get over yourself.
Read the Nirvana sutra
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/mpnsvegetarianism.htm
I think you will find it agree's with my view.
metta to all
These are ethical prohibitions of meat eating and they apply to the generation of loving-kindness etc. Nobody is denying that.
The point of contention is the idea that the karma associated with purchasing meat is equal to the karma associated with killing.
And I know I'm not playing the high and mighty, thanks for noticing.
Don't say I didn't warn you.......