Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

[Rick O'Shez]

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

You caused the butcher to kill by buying meat and creating demand for his product,

 

[buddhist]

You get a lot of that in these threads.

You stated that you align yourself with the forest tradition of Buddhism. Do you disagree with this ajahn's assesment?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You stated that you align yourself with the forest tradition of Buddhism. Do you disagree with this ajahn's assesment?

This article mentions the 3-fold rule: "Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

What do you think the purpose of this rule is? What is the principle behind it? Think about it.

 

[buddhist]

This article mentions the 3-fold rule: "Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

What do you think the purpose of this rule is? What is the principle behind it? Think about it.

It's to prevent monks from assuming any negative kamma, if someone knowingly acts as his proxy (transferring the negative kamma onto him).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's to prevent monks from assuming any negative kamma, if someone knowingly acts as his proxy (transferring the negative kamma onto him).

That contradicts what you were saying earlier. And it isn't just about kamma.

 

[buddhist]

That contradicts what you were saying earlier. And it isn't just about kamma.

What did I write that was contradictory?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

You can get B12 from eggs (including unfertilized) and milk, as well as as a cultured product from specific single celled bacteria. The latter of which is about as natural as any fermented product. From wine to vinegar to kombucha to yogurt to miso.

 

[Osal]

I think you are just trying to find justifications for your inability to sacrifice meat.

Ya think? One, I was not trying to justify eating meat. I don't have to justify anything because I don't care what you think about my diet. And it's not inability. I quit smoking after 40-plus years. I can quit anything if I want to. In this case, let's say it's unwillingness. And yes, I understand the karmic burden that creates.

I was just only stating the Gautama Buddha stance by the way....

I'm certain you feel that way, too, but the truth is, what you have to say on this matter isn't enough to convince me.

Plus I can reduce harm in many other ways other than by stopping meat consumption.

There's nothing in the Buddha's teachings that say I HAVE to be a vegetarian. There are no teachings in either my practice or study lineages that say I have to be a vegetarian In the 12 years I've known him my guru has never said a word on the subject in my presence or any other form of teaching he uses. I cannot and will not agree that diet is the be all end all of our practice.

 

[buddhist]

You can get B12 from eggs (including unfertilized) and milk, as well as as a cultured product from specific single celled bacteria. The latter of which is about as natural as any fermented product. From wine to vinegar to kombucha to yogurt to miso.

That's true, but eggs and milk come from animals too. Some might object, claiming that eating eggs is the destruction of an animal in embryonic form, and taking milk is stealing from an animal's young. And, that fermented products are prohibited by the Fifth Precept.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's true, but eggs and milk come from animals too. Some might object, claiming that eating eggs is the destruction of an animal in embryonic form, and taking milk is stealing from an animal's young. And, that fermented products are prohibited by the Fifth Precept.

Unfertilized eggs Dont have an embryo to destroy and milk cows produce more milk than their calves can use. Besides, if we're talking about doing the best we can with non-idealic circumstances, eating unfertilized eggs and drinking milk causes less suffering than killing said animals.

Even if you were to take the fifth precept as a condemnation of intoxicants rather than a condemnation of drunkenness (I doubt many would fault you for taking a medicine with an intoxicant in it like cough syrup, for example), most fermented products aren't intoxicants. Besides, the process of using bacteria to culture b12 is about as equivalent in using yeasts for bread making.

 

[buddhist]

Unfertilized eggs Dont have an embryo to destroy and milk cows produce more milk than their calves can use. Besides, if we're talking about doing the best we can with non-idealic circumstances, eating unfertilized eggs and drinking milk causes less suffering than killing said animals.

Even if you were to take the fifth precept as a condemnation of intoxicants rather than a condemnation of drunkenness (I doubt many would fault you for taking a medicine with an intoxicant in it like cough syrup, for example), most fermented products aren't intoxicants. Besides, the process of using bacteria to culture b12 is about as equivalent in using yeasts for bread making.

I agree with you, actually. I was imagining how others might object.

 

[crossfire]

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

Right Intention (or Right Resolve) sammasankappa, is right application of the mind. ("Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.")
The word used when Buddha defined karma as intention is cetana: state of citta in action; intention.

Perhaps you could define what you mean by the principle of the 3-fold rule for us?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What did I write that was contradictory?

You said the 3-fold rule is to prevent monks from assuming any negative kamma, if someone knowingly acts as his proxy (transferring the negative kamma onto him). You were arguing that in the case of a butcher there is no possibility of this happening, but practically speaking there is no difference here between a villager killing an animal to feed a monk or a butcher killing an animal. If you think about it the purpose of the 3-fold rule is actually to minimise the killing of animals for food.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps you could define what you mean by the principle of the 3-fold rule for us?

The purpose of the 3-fold rule is to minimise the killing of animals for food, it really isn't about kamma. The principle of the 3-fold rule is non-harm or harmlessness, as an aspect of Right Intention.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Could you state what the 3 fold rule is? Thanks.

See post #124.

 

[crossfire]

See post #124.

Yeah, I saw. I had a brain fart.

 

[crossfire]

This article mentions the 3-fold rule: "Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

What do you think the purpose of this rule is? What is the principle behind it? Think about it.

The Brahmins of that time performed sacrifices and encouraged people to perform sacrifices as a means to gain merit, instead of encouraging people to look within their own minds and develop skillfulness/compassion.

 

[buddhist]

You said the 3-fold rule is to prevent monks from assuming any negative kamma, if someone knowingly acts as his proxy (transferring the negative kamma onto him). You were arguing that in the case of a butcher there is no possibility of this happening, but practically speaking there is no difference here between a villager killing an animal to feed a monk or a butcher killing an animal. If you think about it the purpose of the 3-fold rule is actually to minimise the killing of animals for food.

IMO I see this difference: if a butcher or villager kills an animal to feed a monk (or anyone else in particular), he is transferring the negative kamma to the monk (or that other person). On the other hand, if the butcher or another villager kills an animal to sell to the general public, he doesn't know beforehand who may or may not purchase the meat, and takes on the negative kamma on himself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Brahmins of that time performed sacrifices and encouraged people to perform sacrifices as a means to gain merit, instead of encouraging people to look within their own minds and develop skillfulness/compassion.

(Underline mine) I need to clarify some thing here. It was a time when the Aryan/Indigenous assimilation had taken place. The indigenous shamans had been included in the Aryan fold as Brahmins (perhaps Shakyas and Lichhavis also were indigenous chieftains who had been assimilated as 'kshatriyas'). That is not saying that some Vedic brahmins may not have advocated animal sacrifices but the indigenous shaman/brahmins too might have been involved.

 

[kalyan]

The Brahmins of that time performed sacrifices and encouraged people to perform sacrifices as a means to gain merit, instead of encouraging people to look within their own minds and develop skillfulness/compassion.

You cannot single out all the brahmins