Maybe, maybe notThis might be due to the translation issue, but I think to buy meat is still to engage "in the business of meat," just like to sell it.
I could go to the supermarket and buy meat that would just end up in the bin regardless
Maybe, maybe notThis might be due to the translation issue, but I think to buy meat is still to engage "in the business of meat," just like to sell it.
He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.Think about it. It would have been easy to say "Dont eat meat", just like the jains ... but he didnt
If someone was offered meat to eat, why fault him for eating it?"Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat." Amagandha Sutta
If it's going to be thrown out, why not get those for free?No I am saying that the majority of humans eat meat, that most of the meat in the supermarket will be thrown out regardless of it I buy it or not
He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.
I agree"Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat." Amagandha Sutta
If someone was offered meat to eat, why fault him for eating it?
If it's going to be thrown out, why not get those for free?
Hi Clw_UK,clw_uk wrote:At a small scale market, such as they were in his time, this would be true. However the massive global food market is a different kettle of fish and requires different reasoning.He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.
beeblebrox wrote:Hi Clw_UK,clw_uk wrote:At a small scale market, such as they were in his time, this would be true. However the massive global food market is a different kettle of fish and requires different reasoning.He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.
This probably won't resolve the argument, but did the Buddha use the same reasoning when he said that the samsara didn't have any discernible beginning (nor end, I think), but still taught liberation from it?
Hi Clw_UK,clw_uk wrote: Whats that got to do with anything?
beeblebrox wrote:Hi Clw_UK,clw_uk wrote: Whats that got to do with anything?
Indeed... that was why I said it probably won't resolve the argument.
The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.clw_uk wrote: Well its still open if it resolves the argument or not. I asked what your statement has to do with anything i.e. please clarify it, then we can see if it resolves the argument or not.
Samsara is the spinning of the mind. Its a mistake to compare it with market forces.The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.
Do you think that this kind of reasoning will be valid when we apply it to the market, where the killing is occurring to make the meat available? Especially when this killing still always will go on, regardless of whether we buy the meat or not?
No of course not, but I would be interested to hear a response to you from my above post relating to my experience at KFC?Or maybe even more relevant... the argument about eating vs. not eating meat still will always go on. Do you think we need to be a part of it? Is it obligatory?
What are these "market forces"? Is that something like the "celestial forces" which make everything run?clw_uk wrote:Samsara is the spinning of the mind. Its a mistake to compare it with market forces.The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.
I wonder if the Buddha or an arahant had any effect on the samsara?As I said, in a small market it would have an effect. In a global market it doesnt.Do you think that this kind of reasoning will be valid when we apply it to the market, where the killing is occurring to make the meat available? Especially when this killing still always will go on, regardless of whether we buy the meat or not?
It's your experience at the KFC. Nothing came to my mind to say anything about it... I didn't think there had to be.No of course not, but I would be interested to hear a response to you from my above post relating to my experience at KFC?Or maybe even more relevant... the argument about eating vs. not eating meat still will always go on. Do you think we need to be a part of it? Is it obligatory?
But wasn't the purpose of the 3-fold rule to reduce suffering and harm to other living beings? Isn't this an extension of metta?clw_uk wrote: But yet he ate meat and never enforced it...
And if we buy meat from a butcher we're saying that there's no way we would get involved in butchery, but we're quite happy for somebody else to do it when it suits us?Jhana4 wrote: "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
Customers make a business possible.
Jhana4 wrote:The Buddha allegedly ate meat. There are disputes whether or not MN 55 and a similar passage in the commentaries have been translated correctly.clw_uk wrote:Interesting that the Buddha classed meat production with such fine endeavors as arms dealing, the slave traide, the drug trade and making poison.
Yet he ate meat and didn't enforce a rule for vegetarianism. In fact the only time he is asked to do so, he refuses.
The demand for meat won't go away, and a lot of meat will end up in the bin, so there is no harm in buying it
In the two version of the suttas I have found the part where the Buddha states he will eat meat is in parenthesis. I need to research what the parenthesis mean and I am following up on the source of the claim of the translation error. According to the monk who told me this MN 55 should have been translated as "I will eat almsfood if I can't tell if there is meat in it".
As to your second point I think your reasoning is at fault. Current cultural culinary tastes are not laws of physics, they can change. The second part of your second point seems to be saying we have to keep eating meet because if large amounts of people stopped all at once some meat would be wasted by being thrown away ( probably can be used for fertilizer ). That would mean you would have to keep perpetuating an unethical act to keep the results of previous unethical acts from being wasteful.
As far as ethics go, forget about Buddhism and forget about the suffering to livestock animals, many of whom are as intelligent as dogs or young human children. Meat production contributes more to the greenhouse effect of global climate change than the transportation industry. Do you have kids? Do you want them, their friends or your grandchildren to live in the future resulting from global climate change?
If you are interested in the future you should read this essay by an environmental journalist who states flatly he could care less about vegetarianism, but he gave up meat because he is aware of how it is contributing to global climate change and he doesn't want that future for him or his children:
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles ... arbon-diet
http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/eq ... ture4.htmlMethane is created in anaerobic environments and is naturally produced and emitted from wetlands and other natural situations. Mother Nature, however, is not the predominate generator of methane. Humans are. The decomposition of waste, the burning of biomass, the extraction of fossil fuels, the digestion of livestock, and rice cultivation combine to emit more than twice the methane emitted by natural processes.
It is this last source that Mr. Xu is focusing his research on. Most rice is grown in flooded rice paddies, mainly because the floodwater has no adverse effects on the rice plants but controls most weeds and pest insects. The flood water creates an anaerobic environment just right for methane production. Rice cultivation accounts for 17 percent of the anthropogenically produced methane.