• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
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.

I don't think it's possible to "transfer" kamma in the way you are describing. Kamma is about intention, and if you make a decision to buy meat you are causing somebody else to kill animals, directly or indirectly - that breaches the first precept.

I notice you are still ignoring Right Intention, which includes developing harmlessness. This is not just about kamma.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's possible to "transfer" kamma in the way you are describing. Kamma is about intention, and if you make a decision to buy meat you are causing somebody else to kill animals, directly or indirectly - that breaches the first precept.

I notice you are still ignoring Right Intention, which includes developing harmlessness. This is not just about kamma.
Instead of saying "transfer", perhaps I should say the kamma belongs to the one who it intended for.

As for intention: if I purchase meat, I am purchasing dead flesh. There is no harming dead flesh.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
(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 have advocated animal sacrifices but the indigenous shaman/brahmins too might have been involved.
Agreed, it was not only Brahmins who encouraged merit via sacrifice, nor can it be assumed that all Brahmins encouraged sacrifice as a means to get merit.
Here are some sutta snippets to help get an idea as to why Buddha made the 3-fold rule:

Then the brahman Sangarava went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "I say, Master Gotama. We brahmans perform sacrifices and get others to perform sacrifices. And whoever performs a sacrifice, whoever gets others to perform a sacrifice, they have all practiced a practice of merit — the business of a sacrifice — [that benefits] countless beings. But whoever, leaving his family, has gone forth from the home life into homelessness, and tames his single self, brings his single self into tune, brings his single self to Unbinding: his practice of merit — this business of going forth — is one [that benefits] only one being."

"Very well then, brahman, in that case I will cross-question you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? There is the case where a Tathagata appears in the world, a worthy one, rightly-self-awakened, consummate in clear-knowing & conduct, one who has gone the good way, knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened, blessed. He says: 'Here! This is the path, this is the practice that, having practiced, I make known the unexcelled coming ashore in the holy life,[1] having directly known & realized it for myself. Come! You, too, practice in such a way that you will remain in the unexcelled coming ashore in the holy life, having directly known & realized it for yourselves.' Thus the Teacher teaches the Dhamma, and others practice, for Suchness. And there are countless hundreds of them, countless thousands of them, countless hundreds of thousands of them. This being the case, is this practice of merit — this business of going-forth — one that benefits countless beings, or only one being?"

"This being the case, Master Gotama, this practice of merit — this business of going-forth — is one that benefits countless beings."

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the brahman Sangarava, "Of these two practices, brahman, which appeals to you as the less complicated, the less violent, the more fruitful, & the more rewarding?"

When this was said, the brahman Sangarava said to Ven. Ananda, "Just as with Master Gotama & Master Ananda, I worship them, I praise them [both]."

A second time, Ven. Ananda said to him, "I didn't ask you whom you worship and whom you praise. I ask you, 'Of these two practices, brahman, which appeals to you as the less complicated, the less violent, the more fruitful, & the more rewarding?'"

A second time, the brahman Sangarava said to Ven. Ananda, "Just as with Master Gotama & Master Ananda, I worship them, I praise them [both]."

A third time, Ven. Ananda said to him, "I didn't ask you whom you worship and whom you praise. I ask you, 'Of these two practices, brahman, which appeals to you as the less complicated, the less violent, the more fruitful, & the more rewarding?'"

A third time, the brahman Sangarava said to Ven. Ananda, "Just as with Master Gotama & Master Ananda, I worship them, I praise them [both]."

Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "Being asked a legitimate question by Ananda up to the third time, the brahman Sangarava evades it and does not reply to it. Suppose I were to get him out [of this dilemma]."

So the Blessed One said to the brahman Sangarava, "Brahman, what was the topic of conversation that arose today when the royal court sat gathered in the royal palace?" (continued at this link.)​

This sutta shows that sacrifice was not encouraged among all Brahmins:

A. "There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves.'[1]

B. "Some contemplatives & brahmans, speaking in direct opposition to those contemplatives & brahmans, say this: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

"What do you think, householders? Don't these contemplatives & brahmans speak in direct opposition to each other?"

"Yes, lord." (more at this link)​

This sutta shows that sacrifice was not limited to Brahmins, and what is more enlightened than sacrifice:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "All the grounds for making merit leading to spontaneously arising (in heaven) do not equal one-sixteenth of the awareness-release through good will. Good will — surpassing them — shines, blazes, & dazzles.

"Just as the radiance of all the stars does not equal one-sixteenth of the radiance of the moon, as the moon — surpassing them — shines, blazes, & dazzles, even so, all the grounds for making merit leading to spontaneously arising in heaven do not equal one-sixteenth of the awareness-release through good will. Good will — surpassing them — shines, blazes, & dazzles.

"Just as in the last month of the rains, in autumn, when the sky is clear & cloudless, the sun, on ascending the sky, overpowers the space immersed in darkness, shines, blazes, & dazzles, even so, all the grounds for making merit leading to spontaneously arising in heaven do not equal one-sixteenth of the awareness-release through good will. Good will — surpassing them — shines, blazes, & dazzles.

"Just as in the pre-dawn darkness the morning star shines, blazes, & dazzles, even so, all the grounds for making merit leading to spontaneously arising in heaven do not equal one-sixteenth of the awareness-release through good will. Good will — surpassing them — shines, blazes, & dazzles."

When one develops — mindful — good will without limit, fetters are worn through, on seeing the ending of acquisitions. If with uncorrupted mind you feel good will for even one being, you become skilled from that. But a Noble One produces a mind of sympathy for all beings, an abundance of merit. Kingly seers, who conquered the earth swarming with beings, went about making sacrifices: the horse sacrifice, human sacrifice, water rites, soma rites, & the "Unobstructed," but these don't equal one sixteenth of a well-developed mind of good will — as all the constellations don't, one sixteenth of the radiance of the moon. One who neither kills nor gets others to kill, neither conquers, nor gets others to conquer, with good will for all beings, has no hostility with anyone at all.
-source-

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. :)
 

Osal

Active Member
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 appears to me that monks are supposed to adhere to certain requirements for the meat they eat.

I am not a monk.

It doesn't say anything about Right Intention or Amhisa.

I suppose it could be applied, but it could be seen as a bit of a reach.

If someone chose to abide by Vinaya, but refrain from ordination making him/her a monk/nun, then the dietary restriction could be applied. However for those of us who chose to lead a lay life, such restrictions wouldn't be incumbent in any way.
 
Last edited:

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
As for intention: if I purchase meat, I am purchasing dead flesh. There is no harming dead flesh.

By purchasing meat you are causing animals to be killed, directly or indirectly = breach of first precept.
You are also ignoring Right Intention in order to fullfill a dietary preference = failure to follow 8-fold path.
Could it be that your attachment to meat is clouding your interpretation of Buddhist teaching?

These verses from the Dhammapada are relevant:
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Could it be that your attachment to meat is clouding your objectivity?
Why make meat into something special. What is being put in the begging bowl is not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. It is only then that the monk is allowed to eat bhiksha meat. And the bhikkhu will not ask for another helping. If it is given as an enticement, the bhikkhu should refuse it.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Why make meat into something special.

It's not making meat into something special, it's dealing with the reality that our choices always have consequences. If we purchase meat then we cause animals to be killed, directly or indirectly, and that is a breach of the first precept. It is also ignoring Right Intention. Or to put it more simply, the decision to buy meat is often a selfish one.

Meat only becomes "special" when we have an attachment to eating it. And when we have an attachment to an unskillfull behaviour we often become defensive when challenged and we can invest a lot of energy in trying to rationalise it.

It's why discussions like this generate a lot of heat, the underlying sentiment is often "I like meat, how dare you suggest it's unethical!" Discussions on the fifth precept often get heated for the same reason, people just like to have a drink. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That is what I mean. "The house has given me the left-over meat after the family members have eaten. That is probably what they could give me. They did not know that I would come, did not purchase meat for me. Let us not make a fuss over it and eat it. I am sorry for the jiva who must have experienced pain when it was being killed, but that is what has already been done. I cannot bring that jiva back to life." Etc.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
That is what I mean. "The house has given me the left-over meat after the family members have eaten. That is probably what they could give me. They did not know that I would come, did not purchase meat for me. Let us not make a fuss over it and eat it. I am sorry for the jiva who must have experienced pain when it was being killed, but that is what has already been done. I cannot bring that jiva back to life." Etc.

That is why the thread is about buying meat rather than consuming it - specifically our personal decision to purchase meat when alternatives are available.

By deciding to purchasing meat we cause animals to be killed, directly or indirectly, which is a breach of the first precept.
By deciding to purchase meat we neglect Right Intention by putting a selfish dietary preference before the development of harmlessness.
By deciding to purchase meat we go against the principle of the 3-fold rule, which was clearly designed to minimise the killing of animals for food.

I think I have demonstrated that purchasing meat isn't compatible with Buddhist ethics and practice, and I still haven't seen a coherent response to these points.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

buddhist

Well-Known Member
By purchasing meat you are causing animals to be killed, directly or indirectly = breach of first precept.
You are also ignoring Right Intention in order to fullfill a dietary preference = failure to follow 8-fold path.
Could it be that your attachment to meat is clouding your interpretation of Buddhist teaching?

These verses from the Dhammapada are relevant:
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html
How do you reconcile these verses with what Ajahn Brahmavamso listed in his article which I linked before? E.g.

"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."
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
How do you reconcile these verses with what Ajahn Brahmavamso listed in his article which I linked before? E.g.
"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."

They are complementary.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
How are they contradictory? I don't know what you're objecting to.
How is it possible or acceptable for a layperson to somehow(??) obtain meat to give to a monk or nun to eat, but it's not acceptable for the layperson to obtain meat the same way, to eat it himself?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
How is it possible or acceptable for a layperson to somehow(??) obtain meat to give to a monk or nun to eat, but it's not acceptable for the layperson to obtain meat the same way, to eat it himself?

You're still missing the purpose and principle of the 3-fold rule. Think about it. It's nothing to do with "transferring kamma", it's about minimising the killing of animals.

We need to apply the principle to a modern situation. The Dhammapada verses make it clear that both killing and causing to be killed are unskillfull.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
No, let's not put it aside. You sound like a dodgy lawyer trying to find a loophole.
Why stoop to a personal attack? I'm more than happy to address the point I made which you brought up again, after you answer my question which I proposed first.

But I will indulge you anyways: My point regarding kamma (which you allege I'm putting aside) satisfies and reconciles my understanding of both the prohibition against killing, and Buddha's acceptance of eating meat.

The question I asked is to inquire as to how you reconcile both precepts, since I do not understand how you reconcile them. If anyone is dodging, you are.
 

Osal

Active Member
That is why the thread is about buying meat rather than consuming it - specifically our personal decision to purchase meat when alternatives are available.

By deciding to purchasing meat we cause animals to be killed, directly or indirectly, which is a breach of the first precept.
Nope. My refusal to buy meat on't change the quantiy of animals being slaughtered by one iota. The fact that grocery store around here throw away nearly as much meat as the sell, testifies.

Additioanlly, preccepts aren't binding until; to "take" them. I have not.

So, I have no ethical breach there.



By deciding to purchase meat we neglect Right Intention by putting a selfish dietary preference before the development of harmlessness.

Your dietary preferences are every bit as selfish as mine.


By deciding to purchase meat we go against the principle of the 3-fold rule, which was clearly designed to minimise the killing of animals for food.

That rule applies to monks. Says so in the passage you were kind enough to lend us.


I think I have demonstrated that purchasing meat isn't compatible with Buddhist ethics and practice, and I still haven't seen a coherent response to these points.

I think you had your mind made up already. In fact I think this whole thread, framed with an open question on your part, is egregiously disingenuous.

So there!
 
Top