Hi Chris,Chris wrote:From the Buddha's perspective, vegetarianism is connected with extreme forms of asceticism, which he wants to avoid.
May I ask how you formulated this conclusion?...
Hi Chris,Chris wrote:From the Buddha's perspective, vegetarianism is connected with extreme forms of asceticism, which he wants to avoid.
Hi PeterWhat about a scenario where the seller does not actually himself kill but it happens somewhere further up the supply chain? In this case there is no direct interaction between the buyer and the killer. If the buyer and the killer never meet, never have a direct interaction, then can we say the buyer urges the killer? With no direct interaction it seems to me to get hazy. We would have to think about how our action might be perceived by people we never meet, what effects it might have... this seems to me to stray from the Buddha's teachings, which tend to be very direct and immediate. Urging another to kill, if taken in the context of the rest of the Buddha's teachings, seems to me to refer to a very immediate and deliberate action. There would have to be the intention of urging, something like "May someone somewhere be motivated by this purchase to engage in future killing."
At the risk of being discourteous, I'd like to address once again this specific question:Peter wrote:I am disappointed no one had the courtesy to address my very specific questions but instead resorted to answering unasked questions.
The answer is that this occurs in the present moment.Peter wrote:At what point in the chain of relations and interdependencies is our behavior deemed wholesome or unwholesome?
That will depend on the circumstances in each individual case. I assume you are asking because you would like to know what it would be wholesome for you, yourself, to do. The only opportunity you will have to make that determination is in the present moment when the circumstance is at hand. You can plan ahead all you want, but things will never be exactly what you expect when the moment arrives. All of these hypothetical scenarios that you are putting forth do not lend themselves to simple, black-and-white answers.Peter wrote:Please note I am not asking if you are of the opinion that buying meat is wrong, or unwholesome, or unethical, or un-environmental, or something you just don't want to do. I am asking very specifically if and how buying meat constitutes urging another to kill.
You now have them. I hope I have been courteous. I realize you may still be disappointed.Peter wrote:Your thoughts?
I am not asking about monks on alms round but rather laypeople in the supermarket. I suppose a relevant question might be "Is there a difference between the two?" I think the choice of a lay person shopping versus the lack of choice of a monk receiving alms is a significant difference. Maybe you disagree?Chris wrote:the Buddha ... resisted making it compulsory for monks
An intriguing angle. I'll be curious to see how you and Bhante Appicchato develop this thought.Chris wrote:From the Buddha's perspective, vegetarianism is connected with extreme forms of asceticism, which he wants to avoid.
[emphasis added by me]Ben wrote:What is urging another to kill is the financial imperative and the knowledge of past history of supply and demand, and market prices. Me as ultimate purchaser of the meat may, at an infintesimal level, influence things like market prices, but its a far cry from urging.
Are you saying in some cases the buyer urges the killer and in other cases he doesn't? Usually people in this debate either assert buying meat always results in urging more killing or it doesn't always result in urging more killing. Perhaps you could pick one of the above cases and demonstrate a more specific example wherein there is urging and another specific example wherein there is not urging. Perhaps take the simplest example: purchasing meat from a man who slaughters his own meat each morning to serve the expected day's demand. Under what circumstances whould there be urging and what circumstances wouldn't there be urging?Jechbi wrote:The rest of your very specific questions are not specific enough to answer in a way that would be meaningful or true in all cases.
No, I'm not saying that.Peter wrote:Are you saying in some cases the buyer urges the killer and in other cases he doesn't?Jechbi wrote:The rest of your very specific questions are not specific enough to answer in a way that would be meaningful or true in all cases.
How well do you know this man? How many other customers does this man have? If you stopped buying meat there, would the man be inclined to slaughter fewer animals? These and a host of other factors all could contribute to whatever it is that might be regarded as "urging," depending on the definition of "urging" that everyone is accepting for the sake of discussion. And all of it is hypothetical.Peter wrote: Usually people in this debate either assert buying meat always results in urging more killing or it doesn't always result in urging more killing. Perhaps you could pick one of the above cases and demonstrate a more specific example wherein there is urging and another specific example wherein there is not urging. Perhaps take the simplest example: purchasing meat from a man who slaughters his own meat each morning to serve the expected day's demand. Under what circumstances whould there be urging and what circumstances wouldn't there be urging?
Sometimes you will have an idea whether there will be enough measured demand to prompt a replenishment of supply.Peter wrote:When you buy a product, you contribute to the measured demand, true, but at the time of your action you have no idea whether there will be enough measured demand to prompt a replenishment of supply.
Of course not. Life's a lot more complicated than that.Peter wrote:... Clearly, to me at least, not every act of buying results in the seller feeling urged to resupply, nor is every act of buying accompanied by the intention to urge.
Elohim wrote:... we should never forget the very nature of samsara.
Nyanaponika Thera wrote:Also for the strict vegetarian's sake, living beings have to die under the farmer's plowshare, and his lettuce and other vegetables have to be kept free of snails and other "pests," at the expense of these living beings who, like ourselves, are in search of food. A growing population's need for more arable land deprives animals of their living space and, in the course of history, has eliminated many a species. It is a world of killing in which we live and have a part. We should face this horrible fact ...
Thank you, Ben. I agree, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I do think the specific hypothetical questions are difficult to answer in a practical way, though.Ben wrote:I think there is merit in Peter's line of inquiry.
I hope you are well.Ben wrote:Having made an extraordinarily difficult decision yesterday which was a breach of the first precept. My heart also goes out to all those who, like me, really struggle with the difficult and day to day situations that may ripple and echo through the lives of others.
I do not agree. These factors may contribute to whether the urging is successful but they do not contribute to whether there is any urging at all. If I say to you "Go kill me some meat. Please. I'll pay you. All the cool kids are doing it." etc, then I think we can all agree I am urging you to kill, whether or not you actually go and kill something. Furthermore, we can understand from the Buddha's teaching as a whole that the nature of an action depends on the doer of that action, not the recipient of the results of that action. For example, if I lie to you but you don't believe my lie that doesn't stop my action from being unwholesome.*Jechbi wrote:How well do you know this man? How many other customers does this man have? If you stopped buying meat there, would the man be inclined to slaughter fewer animals? These and a host of other factors all could contribute to whatever it is that might be regarded as "urging,"
I think since this is a Dhamma discussion we need to use the definition given by the Buddha. Perhaps instead of throwing our hands up in the air and saying "we can't know" we should instead ask what the Buddha means by "urging". I understand it to mean "an action taken with the intent of persuading another to do something."Jechbi wrote:depending on the definition of "urging" that everyone is accepting for the sake of discussion
I think it depends on the question. I think asking "What should I do in this hypothetical situation" is very difficult to answer in a meaningful way. But I think asking "What does Buddhism teach regarding this hypothetical situation" is not as difficult to answer. It may require a more thorough knowledge of the teachings than you or I have at present, but that is a situation remedied by asking questions.Jechbi wrote:I do think the specific hypothetical questions are difficult to answer in a practical way, though.
Maybe it should. I will think about it.gabrialbranbury wrote:Maybe this thread should be in the classical Theravada Folder.