Bad Karma

[lilithu]

I can understand the alms bowl , the monk has given up most of his worldly possessions , has he not ? Is there any difference between a monk and a layperson in Buddhism ?

Sorry for my questions . I would assume that it would depend upon how .... free one wanted to be of karma ?

There's a big difference between a monk and a householder (lay person) in Buddhism. At least in Eastern Buddhism. The way that the Buddha set it up, if you're really serious about attaining enlightenment, you become a monk. It's the only way to do it. And monks and householders have a symbiotic relationship in that householders provide for the physical needs of the monks and monks provide for the spiritual needs of the householders. So that if I as a householder give alms to a monk, that act itself will aleviate me of some of my karma.

Sometime after the Buddha died however, there was a big reform movement within Buddhism. On the level of the Reformation within Christianity (which created Protestantism versus Catholicism/Orthodox). Mahayana buddhists basically said that the privileging of monasticism and retreat from the world are overemphasized. (I'm more of a Mahayanist, as opposed to the more traditional Theravadist.) Even so, there is still a strong monastic tradition within Mahayana.

Western Buddhism seems to me a different beast altogether. The emphasis seems to be more on self-help techniques in this life rather than attaining nibbana. There is no talk of rebirth. I don't think monks figure in the Western concept of buddhism, except as the people who run the temples in which one's retreats are held.

 

[kreeden]

That is pretty much how I understood the little that I do about the teachings of the Buddha . Thank you Lilithu .

 

[Hema]

I don't believe that you get bad karma from eating the meat but from killing the animal.

Why is the animal killed then? Eating meat contributes to the animal being killed. It is like attaining happiness out of another creature's suffering. It does indeed create bad karma. Bigvindaloo, if you have to question the morality of your eating of meat then your subconscious is trying to tell you something.

 

[Engyo]

Hema -

The point there is that if a mendicant monk is invited to join in a meal that a family or village is having, and meat is being served, then there is no problem with consuming the meat, since the animal would have been killed regardless of whether or not the monk partakes. If the animal was to be killed specifically because the monk would attend, then that would not be acceptable.

The point you raise is why many many Buddhists choose to be vegetarian completely, rather than have to make such distinctions.

 

[vandervalley]

The point there is that if a mendicant monk is invited to join in a meal that a family or village is having, and meat is being served, then there is no problem with consuming the meat, since the animal would have been killed regardless of whether or not the monk partakes. If the animal was to be killed specifically because the monk would attend, then that would not be acceptable.

The monk may be allowed to eat meat if the villagers donated the food; provided he or she is really commited to following Buddha's teaching; otherwise i still think the monks will also be subjected to bad karma; the point being by just being a monk doesn't immunise u from aquiring bad karma from eating the animals slaugtered mercilessly. HOWEVER; the monk should also advise the villagers that eating meat will incure bad karma which may lead them to be killed and eaten in the after lifes.

 

[lilithu]

The monk may be allowed to eat meat if the villagers donated the food; provided he or she is really commited to following Buddha's teaching; otherwise i still think the monks will also be subjected to bad karma; the point being by just being a monk doesn't immunise u from aquiring bad karma from eating the animals slaugtered mercilessly. HOWEVER; the monk should also advise the villagers that eating meat will incure bad karma which may lead them to be killed and eaten in the after lifes.

Karma does not arise from eating meat but from the attachment to eating meat or the aversion to eating meat. (Aversion is also a form of attachment.) Without attachment to eating meat, there is no reason to choose to eat it if other options are available. Without aversion to eating meat, there is no reason to refuse to eat it if the animal had already been killed and its meat is served to you.

 

[vandervalley]

Karma does not arise from eating meat but from the attachment to eating meat or the aversion to eating meat. (Aversion is also a form of attachment.) Without attachment to eating meat, there is no reason to choose to eat it if other options are available. Without aversion to eating meat, there is no reason to refuse to eat it if the animal had already been killed and its meat is served to you.

Correct me if I am wrong. There are TWO ways to incur bad karma; one is by thinking; the other is by action. if I understand you correctly; you are saying that if one doesn't have the desire to eat meat; then it is ok to eat meat. So what if a guy says; I had no desire to kill anyone; all i did was pointing a gun at a crowed of people and pulled the trigger.

You see; the action itself will incur bad karma; but to a much lesser degree than if u had the desire AND the action.

 

[lilithu]

Correct me if I am wrong. There are TWO ways to incur bad karma; one is by thinking; the other is by action. if I understand you correctly; you are saying that if one doesn't have the desire to eat meat; then it is ok to eat meat. So what if a guy says; I had no desire to kill anyone; all i did was pointing a gun at a crowed of people and pulled the trigger.

You see; the action itself will incur bad karma; but to a much lesser degree than if u had the desire AND the action.

I have good reason to believe that if I shoot into a crowd that I will hurt someone and cause suffering. All concerns about bad karma asside, why would I do that?

If you reread what I wrote, what I said was that it was ok to eat meat if the animal had already been killed and its meat was then served to you. In that case, no additional suffering is caused since the animal is already dead.

Granted, such a scenario would happen only rarely. If you buy meat from the grocery store or order it in a restaurant, you are adding to the demand for meat and therefore animals are being killed on you behalf. But, if someone is serving you dinner and does not know any better and serves you meat, would you refuse to eat it on the sake of principle? That is attachment.

 

[syoonsh]

well, in Korean buddhism, Korean monks are vegetarian. Because they believe once they eat meat they are eating their animal's karma like you said and we have more about on that.

Infact, due to many people eat meat , people have to kill many animals. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and when animals dies they eventually become human as well. The reason why Earth population is so huge now is that I guess you alrady know my point. From 1000 years ago to WWI, population was only under 2 billion. Now it's more than 6 billion. What do you think of this? The populatino will reduce by 1/3 when after EARTH SHIFT CHANGE. AT that time, only chosen people and only GODS and highly spiritually involed souls will be on EARTH. and people who previous live on EARTh will eventually born again in different level on universe. (SEE CONVERSATION WITH NOSTRADAMUS about EARTH SHIFT CHANGE).

 

[adthelad]

Hi, I just finished eating a steak. It tasted so good I've got another on now cooking. At the same time I find myself thinking about the animal I am eating, hence this thread. I know Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. Is it bad karma. More specifically, what is bad karma?

Here's a simplification:

Eating meat is basically only as bad as you think it is yourself. Bad karma is transgression against the ethical codes you hold yourself to. We are basically good and in doing something bad we feel guilt and create a justification in order to try and reduce this guilt. These justifications build up over time (and lifetimes) and can result in very confused and strange behaviour - all the time while thinking we're right.

A psychotic has so much guilt that it completely overwhelms him.

 

[Hema]

...what I said was that it was ok to eat meat if the animal had already been killed and its meat was then served to you. In that case, no additional suffering is caused since the animal is already dead...Granted, such a scenario would happen only rarely. If you buy meat from the grocery store or order it in a restaurant, you are adding to the demand for meat and therefore animals are being killed on you behalf. But, if someone is serving you dinner and does not know any better and serves you meat, would you refuse to eat it on the sake of principle? That is attachment.

According to what scripture? If someone is serving me dinner with meat in it I will refuse it because I do not want to eat and enjoy myself knowing that the animal I'm eating suffered and died. Those are my principles. Plus, it is against my religious teachings. Everyone is talking about karma and eating meat, but according to what religion? If Buddhists say it is ok in the scenario you described, then I would not be able to comment because I'm not Buddhist. If Buddhism promotes what you said, can you please tell me from which scripture?

 

[Hema]

To be honest ; You will eventually have to pay back to the animals u ate...Its only a matter of time (this life or later)...So please be an animal lover and fight for their rights to live on this planet.

I agree with you 100%. :clap2:
I love animals so much.

 

[lilithu]

According to what scripture? If someone is serving me dinner with meat in it I will refuse it because I do not want to eat and enjoy myself knowing that the animal I'm eating suffered and died. Those are my principles. Plus, it is against my religious teachings. Everyone is talking about karma and eating meat, but according to what religion? If Buddhists say it is ok in the scenario you described, then I would not be able to comment because I'm not Buddhist. If Buddhism promotes what you said, can you please tell me from which scripture?

This is the Buddhist discussion forum, so the discussion here is according to the Buddhist tradition. Buddhism does not promote the eating of meat. It promotes non-attachment. That includes non-attachement to the taste of meat and non-attachment to the repulsion from meat. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Ideally, a Buddhist would only rarely eat meat, but he or she would not say "I am a vegetarian; I do not eat meat" since that causes attachment.

As for scripture, here's one:

...meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55

As Engyo said, the Buddha himself was not vegetarian. I would think that would end the debate right there.

I will not respond to any more argumentative posts.

 

[lilithu]

well, in Korean buddhism, Korean monks are vegetarian.

Mahayanans tend more likely to be vegetarian that Therevadans but even so, you said that Korean monks are vegetarian. What about Korean Buddhists who are not monks?

Infact, due to many people eat meat , people have to kill many animals. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and when animals dies they eventually become human as well. The reason why Earth population is so huge now is that I guess you alrady know my point. From 1000 years ago to WWI, population was only under 2 billion. Now it's more than 6 billion. What do you think of this? The populatino will reduce by 1/3 when after EARTH SHIFT CHANGE. AT that time, only chosen people and only GODS and highly spiritually involed souls will be on EARTH. and people who previous live on EARTh will eventually born again in different level on universe. (SEE CONVERSATION WITH NOSTRADAMUS about EARTH SHIFT CHANGE).

What school of Buddhism is this?

 

[Hema]

As Engyo said, the Buddha himself was not vegetarian. I would think that would end the debate right there.

I got the following from http://www.kmspks.org/articles/vege.htm

Though the Buddha never made it a compulsory rule that all His followers have to be vegetarians, He strongly encouraged us to be. In the Bodhisattva practice of minimising harm to all beings and benefiting them as much as possible, the practice of vegetarianism as far as possible plays an essential role. We can see this in many of the Buddha's recorded teachings.
“The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great Compassion.”
-Mahaparinirvana Sutra (The Buddha)
“If a person does not harm any living being…
and does not kill or cause others to kill-
that person is a true spiritual practitioner.”
-Dhammapada (The Buddha)
The Buddha remarked that the meat He consumed in His entire life was manifested by His great compassion and psychic powers. That is to say, not only does the meat in theory already exist as pure meat, it isn’t even real meat! In other words, the Buddha was a full vegetarian at heart!
It is worth mentioning that the Buddha did not die from eating meat (poisoned or putrid pork), as it is so often mistaken. His last meal consisted of "sukara-maddava"- which is correctly translated to be (1) a pig's soft food, ie. food eaten by pigs, (2) "pig's delight," ie. a favourite food of pigs, (3) "pig-pounded," ie., food trampled by pigs. It was actually a kind of mushroom called truffles.

 

[Pardus]

I believe Karma is just describing newtons 3rd law of motion. "For every action there is an equal, yet opposite, reaction."

 

[vandervalley]

I believe Karma is just describing newtons 3rd law of motion. "For every action there is an equal, yet opposite, reaction."

That's why a lot of people say Buddhism is actually quite scientific

haha

 

[lilithu]

I believe Karma is just describing newtons 3rd law of motion. "For every action there is an equal, yet opposite, reaction."

That's why a lot of people say Buddhism is actually quite scientific

haha

Buddhism is very empirical. That's not the same as being very scientific.

Karma is believed by both Buddhists and Hindus.

Karma is more than just Newton's third law.

 

[Doktormartini]

I guess I'm ok cause I am a vegetarian...haha. I am an atheist but I turned vegetarian August of this year, and I did it for moral, enviornmental, and health issues.

 

[lilithu]

I got the following from http://www.kmspks.org/articles/vege.htm

Though the Buddha never made it a compulsory rule that all His followers have to be vegetarians, He strongly encouraged us to be.

So the Buddha was not vegetarian himself but encouraged others to be? What you're saying is that the Buddha was a hypocrite. I think not.

“If a person does not harm any living being…
and does not kill or cause others to kill-
that person is a true spiritual practitioner.”
-Dhammapada (The Buddha)

It says do not harm a living being; do not kill or cause others to kill. It does NOT say do not eat meat. The meat of animals that have already been killed and who were not killed for your sake is ok to eat.

The Buddha remarked that the meat He consumed in His entire life was manifested by His great compassion and psychic powers. That is to say, not only does the meat in theory already exist as pure meat, it isn’t even real meat! In other words, the Buddha was a full vegetarian at heart!

:areyoucra

It is worth mentioning that the Buddha did not die from eating meat (poisoned or putrid pork), as it is so often mistaken. His last meal consisted of "sukara-maddava"- which is correctly translated to be (1) a pig's soft food, ie. food eaten by pigs, (2) "pig's delight," ie. a favourite food of pigs, (3) "pig-pounded," ie., food trampled by pigs. It was actually a kind of mushroom called truffles.

Bull. All we know from the text is the name of the dish - sukara-maddava, translated as most often as pig's delight. And we know that the Buddha died of stomach ailments as a result of eating it, and that he knew that he would. We do not know what was in the dish. I've talked to Buddhist scholars about this very passage, people who can read Pali, some of whom are vegetarian themselves, and they agree that we don't know what sukara-maddava is and it very well could have been meat. Regardless, it still is the case that the Buddha was not vegetarian.