Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

[buddhist]

but by buying, aren't you encouraging the person who does the slaughter to fetch more and slaughter?

Whether or not I purchase meat, it is still ultimately the responsibility of the merchant to procure more meat for sale - or not. A merchant of meat who is not convinced of the Dhamma does not possess right view, and will not obey the precept against it in any case.

As per my opinion, Gautama Buddha was all for non-violence even against an insect or that is what is heard in india/bhAratha even today..........Also I think it is easy to give things like meat/anything, first by force you keep that thing away physically and then as the time goes on, our mind does not even pay much attention to it and over time we completely ignore it....Just the idea of placing a dead body inside us is disgusting to me

I agree that Gotama was for non-violence. However, meat is simply flesh, and no violence is done to it by consuming it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Whether or not I purchase meat, it is still ultimately the responsibility of the merchant to procure more meat for sale - or not. A merchant of meat who is not convinced of the Dhamma does not possess right view, and will not obey the precept against it in any case.

The problem here is that by buying meat you are requiring the butcher to indulge in wrong livelihood and break the first precept, things which you as a Buddhist would presumably not be willing to do. You are getting somebody to do the killing and butchering on your behalf.

 

[kalyan]

The person who kills the animal assumes the negative kamma associated with that death

the negative karma is associated with the event of him killing that animal, so it stays with him even after that event is completed. Now, don't you think he is sharing or passing that negative karma(associated with meat) onto you by putting the ownership of the meat on you ? So finally at the end, you are the owner and he became just a servant fetching something, servant gets only a portion of the result of the act, but you will be getting the main result of the act (act here comes to negative karma) ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

the negative karma is associated with the event of him killing that animal, so it stays with him even after that event is completed. Now, don't you think he is sharing or passing that negative karma(associated with meat) onto you by putting the ownership of the meat on you ?

Indeed. There is surely some responsibility involved here.

 

[kalyan]

Indeed. There is surely some responsibility involved here.

yes...I would not risk it if am a serious seeker. To satisfy 2-3 inches of tongue(after that taste doesn't matter) why I would be sacrificing a far better goal? On this context I want to mention that there is a place called 'Gaya' in Bihar state of India. If you go there, you definitely have to sacrifice the thing you like the most. Most people give up the food items they like the most.

 

[Osal]

Whether or not I purchase meat, it is still ultimately the responsibility of the merchant to procure more meat for sale - or not. A merchant of meat who is not convinced of the Dhamma does not possess right view, and will not obey the precept against it in any case.

I agree that Gotama was for non-violence. However, meat is simply flesh, and no violence is done to it by consuming it.

Interesting. The violence lies in the killing, not in the consumption.

 

[Osal]

Just the idea of placing a dead body inside us is disgusting to me

So, because you find it disgusting the rest of us should abstain?

 

[Osal]

but by buying, aren't you encouraging the person who does the slaughter to fetch more and slaughter? As per my opinion, Gautama Buddha was all for non-violence even against an insect or that is what is heard in india/bhAratha even today.........

An excelent point. Buy buying meat, we encourage the slaughter of animals. Similarly, by paying taxes (in the US) we encourage our government to undertake all sorts of activities and policies that result in the slaughter of countless sentient beings as well. Also, unless we buy our groceries from local coops, the environmental destruction (and the death of countless sentient beings) caused by large-scale farming is also encourraged.

Sadly ours is less than perfect world, and the paradoxical suffering we cause though our actions is incalcuable. If you feel altering your diet is an appropriate means to reduction of that harm, awesome. Some of us prefer to find our own way on the subject.

Actually, I've always liked Native American approaches to the subject, myself.

 

[buddhist]

The problem here is that by buying meat you are requiring the butcher to indulge in wrong livelihood and break the first precept, things which you as a Buddhist would presumably not be willing to do. You are getting somebody to do the killing and butchering on your behalf.

If the butcher is involved in wrong livelihood, then that is his problem. I'm not requiring the butcher to do anything. It would be the butcher's choice to decide to refrain from his business, or not. Perhaps the butcher is selling meat from naturally deceased animals. IMO that is not against early Buddhism whatsoever.

 

[kalyan]

Interesting. The violence lies in the killing, not in the consumption.

I think you are just trying to find justifications for your inability to sacrifice meat. I was just only stating the Gautama Buddha stance by the way....
There is a story that goes in our circles that goes like this:

"A sage, seated beside the Ganges, notices a scorpion that has fallen into the water. He reaches down and rescues it, only to be stung. Some time later he looks down and sees the scorpion thrashing about in the water again. Once more he reaches down to rescue it, and once more he is stung. A bystander, observing all this, exclaims, “Holy one, why do you keep doing that? Don’t you see that the wretched creature will only sting you in return?” “Of course,” the sage replied. “It is the dharma of a scorpion to sting. But it is the dharma of a human being to save.”

Moral of story being -"Ahimsa Paramo Dharma"(Non-violence to every creature is the greatest dharma) (ofcourse the exceptions being Killing in self defense, defense of family, village, country is not himsa. Nor is killing in path of duty, like a hangman does )

 

[buddhist]

the negative karma is associated with the event of him killing that animal, so it stays with him even after that event is completed. Now, don't you think he is sharing or passing that negative karma(associated with meat) onto you by putting the ownership of the meat on you ? So finally at the end, you are the owner and he became just a servant fetching something, servant gets only a portion of the result of the act, but you will be getting the main result of the act (act here comes to negative karma) ?

No, he would not be passing on negative kamma to me. He is assuming any negative kamma on himself.

The "meat" would already be dead when I received it, so I would not assume any negative kamma.

 

[kalyan]

The "meat" would already be dead when I received it,

I would like to differ, meat might be of dead animal, but the person who did it is still alive and carrying the negative karma and finally when he made you the owner of the meat its as good as to say 'he did it for you'. So you are at bigger risk than him in my opinion. he might be just doing it for livelihood but you on the other hand is trying to satisfy and unable to control the pleasure of eating.................

 

[buddhist]

Interesting. The violence lies in the killing, not in the consumption.

Exactly.

This reminds me of Christian debates regarding "appropriate dress". Some Christians believe that one should dress extremely modestly to prevent others from developing lust for you. The issue is this: even if I dress in a "conservative" manner according to society's norms, someone out there might still find this style of dress extremely arousing.

No, the responsibility lies in the "gazer" to restrain his lust, just like it's the responsibility of the butcher to restrain his misdeeds. It is not a misdeed to eat that which is no longer alive.

 

[buddhist]

I would like to differ, meat might be of dead animal, but the person who did it is still alive and carrying the negative karma and finally when he made you the owner of the meat its as good as to say 'he did it for you'. So you are at bigger risk than him in my opinion. he might be just doing it for livelihood but you on the other hand is trying to satisfy and unable to control the pleasure of eating.................

Humans must ingest B12 to sustain our bodies. B12 is not naturally found in any substantial form other than meat products. Therefore, it is according to the laws of Reality, and Dhamma, that humans must eat some meat.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, he would not be passing on negative kamma to me. He is assuming any negative kamma on himself.

Wrong. The first precept covers not just killing but causing to be killed.

 

[kalyan]

Humans must ingest B12 to sustain our bodies. B12 is not naturally found in any substantial form other than meat products. Therefore, it is according to the laws of Reality, and Dhamma, that humans must eat some meat.

come on.....this is a very silly argument, you know it and I know it.. It is almost a proven fact that vegetarians have a healthier lifestyle. You are just trying to find more and more justifications for your act. Agreeing atleast that 'I eat for pleasure' is the first step to analyze the situation instead of living in denial about it. When the self pleasure is given such high importance, I am pretty sure you broke one of Buddhas mainstream principles but that is for the buddhas to think over it. Other than violence, I can explain the metaphysical aspect of why the meat which is considered as tamasik food that increases negative energy should not be consumed, but I have to bring in the vedic teachings which I would think is not justifiable in buddhism DIR

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is not a misdeed to eat that which is no longer alive.

You are forgetting the principle of the 3-fold rule, You are forgetting Right Intention,

 

[buddhist]

Wrong. The first precept covers not just killing but causing to be killed.

I did not cause anything to be killed. The butcher did.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are just trying to find more and more justifications for your act.

You get a lot of that in these threads.

 

[buddhist]

come on.....this is a very silly argument, you know it and I know it.. It is almost a proven fact that vegetarians have a healthier lifestyle. You are just trying to find more and more justifications for your act. Agreeing atleast that 'I eat for pleasure' is the first step to analyze the situation instead of living in denial about it. When the self pleasure is given such high importance, I am pretty sure you broke one of Buddhas mainstream principles

I don't think it's silly. Tell me, how can all vegans and vegetarians naturally obtain adequate vitamin B12?