the great vegetarian debate

[lyndon taylor]

If you truly think the animals you are eating were killed completely independent of your eating them and paying for them to be killed, then you do not seem to understand the laws of cause and effect. Your eating animals is causing animals to be killed, pure and simple.

Kind of like if you are driving a very smoky polluting car, are you polluting the environment, or is it all the fault of the cars manufacturer, when you could easily junk your car and purchase a less polluting car, or ride a bicycle. Its about taking responsibility for your actions, the traditional Therevada position sanctioning meat eating, but not killing, is not taking responsibility, but playing the blame game.

Anyway a lot of misinformation is being spread on the Buddha's position, how about some scriptural evidence that the buddha ever said buying meat at the market that had been killed for consumption was permissible?????

[DNS]

Anyway a lot of misinformation is being spread on the Buddha's position, how about some scriptural evidence that the buddha ever said buying meat at the market that had been killed for consumption was permissible?????

Anguttara Nikaya 8.2 (summary of the relevant passage):

After hearing a Dhamma talk by the Buddha, (the military commander) General Siha addresses one of his staff and tells them to go to the market to purchase some meat for the Sangha. The Niganthas (Jains) complain that the Buddha and his monks will be eating meat from an animal killed for them. But the Buddha explains that no animal was killed specifically for the meat according to the 3 fold rule. The passage does not specifically state whether the Buddha ate the meat or not. Later it is reported that the "pure stainless eye of the Teaching appeared to the general Siha seated there itself; Whatever arisen thing has the nature of ceasing" (Anguttara Nikaya 8.2) which implies that he attained stream entry (sotapanna). This suggests that lay people can purchase meat without violating the First Precept since it is an indirect connection and no specific animal ordered to be killed.

However, in spite of the above, I still choose vegetarian for myself, since I find it in the spirit of the First Precept and ahimsa, even if it is not specially commanded or recommended. But you got to admit, the above passage is probably the most convincing statement on the issue that meat eaters may not be violating the First Precept. Of course on the vegetarian side, there are plenty of other statements by the Buddha against killing or causing to kill, but in this instance General Siha actually goes to the market to purchase meat and the Buddha does not stop him nor scold him.

Full passage here: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... re.pts.htm

[seeker242]

Although, since only a bhikkhu has the authority to interpret such suttas, only a bhikkhu can say authoritatively say it is or isn't. I have never heard any bhikkhu say it isn't.

After all, it is the bhikkhu-sangha that has the sole authority in interpreting the suttas.

Reference?

Several bhikkhus disagree over interpretation as much as, if not more so, than lay people. Several lay people have translated the Pali Canon. Several lay people taught the Dhamma during the time of the Buddha. Several lay people write Dhamma books in modern times and provide their interpretations. So I am curious as to this reference for only bhikkhus being allowed to interpret.

Good question. I thought it was just a given according to tradition! But anyway, I would say what the others have already said. Don't have any sutta references. Although, I think it's quite reasonable to think if a person interprets them in a manner that significantly differs from the opinion of many, most, if not all, bhikkhus, then it's highly unlikely that the bhikkhus are the ones who are misinterpreting it. For example, some people try to interpret the suttas to support a belief in some kind of soul entity, etc. because they personally believe in such an entity. Or that rebirth is just and only a metaphor, etc. But I think when you look at the opinion of the bhikkhu-sangha as a whole, I think it's safe to say that these interpretations are misinterpretations.

Who can possibly be closer to the actual killing than the person who actually creates the demand and pays in full for the slaughter and killing, not to mention the raising of the animal, which would be you, the consumer.

I think it's clear that the person who actually wields the sword to slit the animals neck is the one closest to the killing, since they are doing it by their own actual hands. But do think it's a mistake to think that the purchaser is entirely unconnected. The intentional act of the purchase I would say creates a connection. But not nearly as bad of a connection as the person who wields the sword or saw with their own hand though.

[chownah]

Seeker242 wrote: " A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. "

I think this is wrong. I think the Buddha never taught this. Is there a Sutta reference which says this?
chownah

Yes, the sutta I posted before, and the other discussion where Bhikkhu Pesala translated the pali of the sutta and the sutta's commentary.

The Sutta you posted before most certainly does not speak of raising animals at all....it only talks about a business in meat......on that Sutta the Buddha dies not say that raising animals is part of the business in meat....there is no mention made at all of the raising of the animal. It is only some people's interpretations of the Sutta which include anything about the raising of the animal....and what you don't mention is that there are a lot of people who interpret it differently.

All animals are born and so they must die.......you seem to be saying that if someone raises an animal then that person in some way becomes responsible for the animal's death......if this was true I really think that the Buddha would have mentioned it as one of the very important laws of kamma.....it would have been very easy for the Buddha to have made explicit statements about this issue but he did not as far as I know...........maybe it is a matter of intent....maybe it is a matter of intent....maybe it is a matter of intent....maybe it is a matter of intent....maybe it is a matter of intent....when someone asked the Buddha what kamma was, what dido he say?.........intent....
chownah

[Mkoll]

All animals are born and so they must die.......you seem to be saying that if someone raises an animal then that person in some way becomes responsible for the animal's death

You're right in that the actual raising of the animal is not evidence of responsibility in the animal's death. But the moment that person who has raised the animal sells or gives it to someone who they know will slaughter it, there is responsibility.

[lyndon taylor]

Anyway a lot of misinformation is being spread on the Buddha's position, how about some scriptural evidence that the buddha ever said buying meat at the market that had been killed for consumption was permissible?????

Anguttara Nikaya 8.2 (summary of the relevant passage):

After hearing a Dhamma talk by the Buddha, (the military commander) General Siha addresses one of his staff and tells them to go to the market to purchase some meat for the Sangha. The Niganthas (Jains) complain that the Buddha and his monks will be eating meat from an animal killed for them. But the Buddha explains that no animal was killed specifically for the meat according to the 3 fold rule. The passage does not specifically state whether the Buddha ate the meat or not. Later it is reported that the "pure stainless eye of the Teaching appeared to the general Siha seated there itself; Whatever arisen thing has the nature of ceasing" (Anguttara Nikaya 8.2) which implies that he attained stream entry (sotapanna). This suggests that lay people can purchase meat without violating the First Precept since it is an indirect connection and no specific animal ordered to be killed.

However, in spite of the above, I still choose vegetarian for myself, since I find it in the spirit of the First Precept and ahimsa, even if it is not specially commanded or recommended. But you got to admit, the above passage is probably the most convincing statement on the issue that meat eaters may not be violating the First Precept. Of course on the vegetarian side, there are plenty of other statements by the Buddha against killing or causing to kill, but in this instance General Siha actually goes to the market to purchase meat and the Buddha does not stop him nor scold him.

Full passage here: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... re.pts.htm

And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???

[lyndon taylor]

This appears to distinguish two cases based on causality. In one case a purchase directly instigates a slaughter. In the other case the slaughter happens independently, meaning the act of purchase does not directly instigate that killing.

So hypothetically, if I hire someone to kill you, and they do, its all their fault and I have nothing to do with it???

That would be the first case mentioned above, where the purchase directly instigates the killing. Thus by the logic quoted above hiring a killer in that way would be a violation of the first precept.

Actually you're wrong, In the case of buying meat at the supermarket, you're not actually paying for the raising and killing of the animal you're eating, you're directly paying for (instigating) the raising and killing of future animals that will then be available for you and your friends at the supermarket, so your percent of purchase price that goes to pay the butcher pays for future killing, and if enough people quit buying the meat, the butcher wouldn't get payed and the animals wouldn't get killed, is that kamma direct enough for you???

So you are hiring the butcher to kill animals in the future, just like hiring a killer to kill a person. Just like sending a country off to war to kill people, just like ordering an atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. You are responsible for the killing because you ordered it and/or paid for it.

You're actually trying to tell us that its perfectly OK to pay to kill animals (no bad kamma) but to actually be payed to kill an animal is horribly worse kamma, I know you think you're getting it from the Buddha, but from a logical standpoint it makes absolutely no sense at all.

If trafficking in meat is wrong livelihood, how can financially supporting the wrong livelihood be any better. Without financial support the wrong livelihood would cease.

[seeker242]

Seeker242 wrote: " A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. "

I think this is wrong. I think the Buddha never taught this. Is there a Sutta reference which says this?
chownah

Yes, the sutta I posted before, and the other discussion where Bhikkhu Pesala translated the pali of the sutta and the sutta's commentary.

The Sutta you posted before most certainly does not speak of raising animals at all....it only talks about a business in meat......on that Sutta the Buddha dies not say that raising animals is part of the business in meat....there is no mention made at all of the raising of the animal. It is only some people's interpretations of the Sutta which include anything about the raising of the animal....and what you don't mention is that there are a lot of people who interpret it differently.

Who interprets it differently? What is the suttas definition of "business in meat"? Where in the sutta does the Buddha say what is included as "part of the business in meat"? What does that actually mean in a real life day to day situation? Do you have a sutta reference?

All animals are born and so they must die.......you seem to be saying that if someone raises an animal then that person in some way becomes responsible for the animal's death......
chownah

If a person breeds animals for the purpose of making meat, kills them themselves or sells them to a slaughterhouse to be killed, then yes they are responsible for the animals birth and responsible for the animals death. It is about intent. The intent is to make meat. The intent to make meat = intent to kill, or intent to have someone else kill, both of which are wrong. You are not raising animals to allow them to go live out on the pasture for the rest of their natural lives or plow a field somewhere. You are raising them to kill them, or have someone else kill them, to provide meat. Which is the intent to kill.

But of course I'm never going to agree with you and it seems your mind is already made up about it. So it's probably better to say "agree to disagree".

[DNS]

And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???

Yes, as far as I know, this is the only example of where a lay person purchases meat and the Buddha does not scold nor stop him.

In the case of buying meat at the supermarket, you're not actually paying for the raising and killing of the animal you're eating, you're directly paying for (instigating) the raising and killing of future animals that will then be available for you and your friends at the supermarket, so your percent of purchase price that goes to pay the butcher pays for future killing, and if enough people quit buying the meat, the butcher wouldn't get payed and the animals wouldn't get killed, is that kamma direct enough for you???

I agree with this line of thinking and this is why I am a vegetarian too. But for some reason, the Buddhist texts do not make this connection and place the greatest blame on the one who orders a specific animal (not a future one at the market) to be killed directly and also to the killer. One line of thinking that I have come up with is that perhaps the Buddha wanted a more gradual transition since the Dhamma was a new religion and most were omnivores. He didn't want to upset the current practices and to be a burden on lay people about what they could prepare and offer the monks. Today there are numerous choices at the market and also numerous meat substitutes for those who like the taste of meat type foods. King Ashoka actually did instigate some laws to gradually phase out meat consumption.

[culaavuso]

One line of thinking that I have come up with is that perhaps the Buddha wanted a more gradual transition since the Dhamma was a new religion and most were omnivores.

Another line of thinking is a thought experiment about a meat seller having a "going out of business" sale. With an existing inventory, the seller wants to raise funds to start a new and more wholesome business. Whether the meat sells or not, the funds will solely be applied to the new business which will no longer be wrong livelihood. Any unsold product will simply be thrown away. In this case, there is no killing caused by purchasing the meat and there is no life saved by not purchasing the meat. Such a situation, while admittedly contrived, makes it rather clear that there is no inherent connection between a single act of purchasing meat and the killing of an animal.

Taking this a step further, one can consider a meat seller who intends to remain in business and a purchaser who only purchases once and will never return to the shop. The purchase itself does not cause the death of any animals, and if the meat seller creates additional death in the future expecting the purchase to be repeated then that will only cause a loss of profits from having to throw out an excess of inventory. Any additional death created in that case would be from a misunderstanding of the seller.

At the other extreme, one can consider a meat seller who kills and butchers animals because they derive some pleasure from killing. Such a meat seller might only sell the meat as a convenient way to get rid of the byproducts of their killing and butchering. In that case, regardless of what purchases are made the amount of killing is unchanged. The purchase in such a case is simply unrelated to the motivation of the killer.

The distinction becomes much less clear when the purchase is part of a regular, predictable pattern of purchasing from a seller motivated primarily by profit. This creates much more of a justifiable conclusion on the part of the meat seller that meat should be acquired in the future for that purchaser. It's much easier to construe such a pattern as a standing order for future killing. While this is a rather common situation, it is not inherently the circumstance of every instance of meat being purchased.

The suttas state that the Buddha spoke very directly against the practice of killing sentient beings, and also quite clearly defined trade in meat as wrong livelihood. If those who choose to kill animals would heed his advice, the transition to a vegetarian society would be complete. It seems reasonable to address the harm immediately at the source of the harm that is being done rather than to focus on behaviors that will only end the harm as a second or third order effect, if at all. If all meat purchasers stopped purchasing meat today, the killing would not stop today. The momentum of expectations of those in the meat industry would take time to reach an end. Hunters may continue indefinitely to kill animals primarily for enjoyment of the experience even in the complete absence of sales. However, if all animal killing stopped today then all animal killing would stop today.

[lyndon taylor]

And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???

Yes, as far as I know, this is the only example of where a lay person purchases meat and the Buddha does not scold nor stop him.

I appreciate your comments, David. In reference to my original statement, I was under the impression that the Buddha didn't usually condone buying meat from the market, you seem to be saying that too, that in most scriptural references buying meat killed for the market was looked at as not good, or was breaking the precept??

[Cittasanto]

And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???

Yes, as far as I know, this is the only example of where a lay person purchases meat and the Buddha does not scold nor stop him.

I am unaware of anywhere the Buddha the Buddha "scolds or stops" lay people buying anything. can you give a reference?

[DNS]

No, that is the only incident that I know of either way (scolding or not scolding) where it comes up where a lay person purchases meat. And in that one instance, the Buddha did not stop him, as I mentioned.

The only other incident that comes close is a Brahmin who was planning a large sacrifice which consisted of 3,500 animals of cattle and goats. Typically the meat of sacrificed animals are ate by the participants of the festival. The Buddha explains to him that a bloodless sacrifice is much better, such as giving gifts of generosity and practicing the precepts. He explains about a king who practices sacrifices of generosity for his people and how "in this sacrifice, Brahmin, no bulls were slain, no goats, or sheep, no cocks and pigs, nor were various living beings subject to slaughter."
(Digha Nikaya 5.18)

[Cittasanto]

No, that is the only incident that I know of either way (scolding or not scolding) where it comes up where a lay person purchases meat. And in that one instance, the Buddha did not stop him, as I mentioned.

The only other incident that comes close is a Brahmin who was planning a large sacrifice which consisted of 3,500 animals of cattle and goats. Typically the meat of sacrificed animals are ate by the participants of the festival. The Buddha explains to him that a bloodless sacrifice is much better, such as giving gifts of generosity and practicing the precepts. He explains about a king who practices sacrifices of generosity for his people and how "in this sacrifice, Brahmin, no bulls were slain, no goats, or sheep, no cocks and pigs, nor were various living beings subject to slaughter."
(Digha Nikaya 5.18)

Thanks David,
It seemed like you were indicating that there were instances of "scolding or stopping" the purchase of something.

[cooran]

Just wondering.....

In the Buddha's time, killing a cow, sheep or pig and cutting the body into saleable pieces would mean there would have to be a sizeable population in order to sell and consume the meat within a day or so - with no refrigeration, storing the meat for later consumption would be risky to health. Any thoughts?

With metta,
Chris