Right livelihood

[Jesse]

No you can't assume that...but, if you are driving completely sober and attentively and despite that you hit a pedestrian ( it happens ) then you will not accrue any karma at all.
Karma vipaka is the result of VOLITIONAL activity.
The accident might however be a result of the pedestrians karma ripening.

lol.. so assuming the above is the case and you hit a small child, you think you'd feel just fine the next day? the next few months? No karma at all would cause no effects, any effect is obviously the result of karma.

Thing's arent so simple that you can say only intentional actions acrue karma.

That being the case, eating meat is the exact thing that gives butchers and hunters and the meat industry money, it's why they do what they do, you can't say there is no karma from eating meat if your actions are the direct cause of their negative actions. Even if your intention is to only eat, you are still causing suffering. You are creating karma, and the bodhisatvas vow is to save all sentient beings -- not only themselves.

I don't think that is the case myself because no one "makes a living" from just eating. But of course, people "make a living" selling things. The rule, so to speak, is only concerned with how one makes a living. Since consumption is not a livelihood to begin with, consumption is not applicable to this particular rule. But, that doesn't mean eating it doesn't make bad karma, it just means it's not "wrong livelihood" because it's not even a livelihood to begin with.

You are arguing semantics, which have absolutely nothing to do with reality. It's as if you think these 'rules', have no basis in reality, no reasoning behind them. If that's true, why bother following them. If they are based in reality, then we as intelligent people capable of reasoning should be able to verify the reasoning.

The entire point of my argument is that selling meat, is absolutely not seperate from eating meat in any way. Discussing them as if they are seperate and have nothing to do with each other is delusional.

[odysseus]

The entire point of my argument is that selling meat, is absolutely not seperate from eating meat in any way. Discussing them as if they are seperate and have nothing to do with each other is delusional.

I understand where you're coming from and it's fine and dandy. But eating meat as a means of survival is OK, but not the butchering and selling itself. A butcher does wrong livelihood because he does it to earn an income, but the general person cannot control who and where the meat is coming from, therefore one can eat meat as a means of sustaining oneself unless more wholesome food is available.

Remember, it's OK to eat meat when the meat is not butchered directly for yourself and when it comes second-hand. But I of course believe it is best to cut the meat completely when you can sustain yourself in other ways, and this is easy to do for a Buddhist in our modern times.

[Jesse]

The entire point of my argument is that selling meat, is absolutely not seperate from eating meat in any way. Discussing them as if they are seperate and have nothing to do with each other is delusional.

I understand where you're coming from and it's fine and dandy. But eating meat as a means of survival is OK, but not the butchering and selling itself. A butcher does wrong livelihood because he does it to earn an income, but the general person cannot control who and where the meat is coming from, therefore one can eat meat as a means of sustaining oneself unless more wholesome food is available.

Remember, it's OK to eat meat when the meat is not butchered directly for yourself and when it comes second-hand. But I of course believe it is best to cut the meat completely when you can sustain yourself in other ways, and this is easy to do for a Buddhist in our modern times.

I do not see how killing something for money is any worse than killing it to eat it. It's the same action. No-one out there is deciding which action is more right or wrong. There is only the action and the consequences. Do you really think the animal cares what the motives of it's murderer are? Lol.

Karma isn't a judgement, it's cause and effect.

Remember, it's OK to eat meat when the meat is not butchered directly for yourself and when it comes second-hand. But I of course believe it is best to cut the meat completely when you can sustain yourself in other ways, and this is easy to do for a Buddhist in our modern times.

This portrays this whole awkward round-about method of avoiding karma. "Im going to try to get something but not take any consequences for the action". This is just dumb.

We eat meat because we enjoy it, it tastes good. It's far more economical to eat other things. For example a Peanut butter sandwitch. But who wants to eat that for dinner? We could all be vegetarians but we aren't.. and it's got nothing to do with ease, it's got to do with wanting to enjoy things. We like the taste of meat, so we eat it. I'm not trying to say it makes anyone a bad person, I eat meat myself. I do feel quite bad about it though.

[SeeLion]

My understanding is that being an employee, such as a cook or cashier, at a restaurant that sells meat is right livelihood, but if you own the restaurant you are blameworthy.

How is the owner involved in meat business and not the employee ? I don't get this ...

This is what a business is: more people getting together to perform an activity, one brings the money, another one brings the skill, and another one brings the physical labor. So they are involved together.

By this kind of logic, any activity that is wrong livelihood can be rightfully performed, if we find a method to split the activity into, let's say 20 steps, where only step 7 of the 20 steps is the "wrong" one, and we pay somebody else to do it.

Now, maybe it can be discussed that some employees are less involved, but the ones actually selling the meat or the burgers or roast or whatever obviously are directly involved. And if one actually perform a meat selling activity, how can one claim lack of intention ?

And there is only so much one can squeeze out of the hunter's wife simile.

For example a Peanut butter sandwitch.

There are apparently health concerns regarding the quality of the peanuts within (rancid/moldy). So if you want to eat peanuts, eat peanuts.

[Rroman]

Thank you for everyone's thoughts in this...

In my dualistic mind, I see the difference between a meat eater and one that sells meat. And yes, I think selling of meat is not right livelihood. I would also think that if you work for a resturant, cooking meat, then you too would be acquiring the same karma as the owner.

[Mr. Robot]

My understanding is that one should not work in a field or conduct business which involves trading or profiting from meats or animals bred for slaughter. Running a restaurant which serves meat does violate the principles of right livelihood.

[Jeff H]

Even though I know that karma is often taught and discussed in this “ledger book” format, my feeling is that it can be more practically useful as guidance rather than calculation.

We cannot live in samsara without killing. Karmic teachings address the issue of how we deal with that fact until we can escape samsara. They teach us to be aware that we are killing other beings and mitigate it as much as possible. Who am I killing? Why am I killing? How do I do it? Do I mean to do it? Can I avoid it? How do I feel about it when I’ve done it? The severity of the results depend on all those factors.

Karma teaches me that what I thought and did in the past has literally created my experience of the present. In the present I have the option to learn about the causes of dissatisfaction and happiness so that, little by little, more and more of my thoughts and actions will lead away from suffering and toward happiness for myself and others.

If the question is whether a steak-house owner or a burger-flipper is going to hell, and which hell for how long, personally I have no idea. In the end karma is taught as a very obscure object that only a buddha can know. What I do know is that we have to make a living in samsara for as long as we continue to generate it. Some beings have better options to choose from than others. The most important factor is for each of us to try to assess our personal choices and mitigate the horrors of samsara to the best of our personal ability.

[BrianG]

I do not see how killing something for money is any worse than killing it to eat it. It's the same action.

It is not the same action. What you are positing is that action is independent of intention. There can be no action without intention, thus action is dependent on intention. Different intentions give you different actions.

Killing someone because you intend to defend yourself. Killing someone because you intend to eat them. There is a world of difference.

[joy&peace]

Being a vegetarian is good and important in many ways. It's like voting with your forks, to use an old expression. One issue with eating meat, under various special circumstances, is that others may observe this and do the same, thinking it's quite alright. Clearly, to the animals under duress, it is not at all alright. Yet still - non-attachment is there; this is the paradox of the path.

The good man is happy in this life, and in the next. Doing good, he knows he has done good; etc... Paraphrased from dhammapad,

Peace.

[SeeLion]

Even though I know that karma is often taught and discussed in this “ledger book” format, my feeling is that it can be more practically useful as guidance rather than calculation.

We cannot live in samsara without killing. Karmic teachings address the issue of how we deal with that fact until we can escape samsara. They teach us to be aware that we are killing other beings and mitigate it as much as possible. Who am I killing? Why am I killing? How do I do it? Do I mean to do it? Can I avoid it? How do I feel about it when I’ve done it? The severity of the results depend on all those factors.

Quite inspiring, even though not totally convinced the "ledger book" format is totally irrelevant.

I do not see how killing something for money is any worse than killing it to eat it. It's the same action.


It is not the same action. What you are positing is that action is independent of intention. There can be no action without intention, thus action is dependent on intention. Different intentions give you different actions.

I may be wrong, but I see two different things: intention of the action with the source/origin of the intention.

So while you are killing, the intention is to kill. So in both cases, that part is equal.

Now if for example, one kills out of anger, probably anger kamma is compound with the killing kamma.

As for killing for money and killing to eat, they do seem generally similar, since money is to fulfill needs, and so is eating. Now, I am sure a close analysis could reveal differences on a case by case basis, but that is probably beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Simon E.]

My understanding is that one should not work in a field or conduct business which involves trading or profiting from meats or animals bred for slaughter. Running a restaurant which serves meat does violate the principles of right livelihood.

Many Buddhist teachers of many different schools disagree with you. Some would agree. Its a subject that they all encounter regularly.
Probably the best course is to follow the teachings of your particular school.

[Simon E.]

The entire point of my argument is that selling meat, is absolutely not seperate from eating meat in any way. Discussing them as if they are seperate and have nothing to do with each other is delusional.

I understand where you're coming from and it's fine and dandy. But eating meat as a means of survival is OK, but not the butchering and selling itself. A butcher does wrong livelihood because he does it to earn an income, but the general person cannot control who and where the meat is coming from, therefore one can eat meat as a means of sustaining oneself unless more wholesome food is available.

Remember, it's OK to eat meat when the meat is not butchered directly for yourself and when it comes second-hand. But I of course believe it is best to cut the meat completely when you can sustain yourself in other ways, and this is easy to do for a Buddhist in our modern times.

I do not see how killing something for money is any worse than killing it to eat it. It's the same action. No-one out there is deciding which action is more right or wrong. There is only the action and the consequences. Do you really think the animal cares what the motives of it's murderer are? Lol.

Karma isn't a judgement, it's cause and effect.

Remember, it's OK to eat meat when the meat is not butchered directly for yourself and when it comes second-hand. But I of course believe it is best to cut the meat completely when you can sustain yourself in other ways, and this is easy to do for a Buddhist in our modern times.

This portrays this whole awkward round-about method of avoiding karma. "Im going to try to get something but not take any consequences for the action". This is just dumb.

We eat meat because we enjoy it, it tastes good. It's far more economical to eat other things. For example a Peanut butter sandwitch. But who wants to eat that for dinner? We could all be vegetarians but we aren't.. and it's got nothing to do with ease, it's got to do with wanting to enjoy things. We like the taste of meat, so we eat it. I'm not trying to say it makes anyone a bad person, I eat meat myself. I do feel quite bad about it though.

Karma is never removed. What is 'removed' is the creator of karma.

[BrianG]

My understanding is that one should not work in a field or conduct business which involves trading or profiting from meats or animals bred for slaughter. Running a restaurant which serves meat does violate the principles of right livelihood.

Many Buddhist teachers of many different schools disagree with you. Some would agree. Its a subject that they all encounter regularly.
Probably the best course is to follow the teachings of your particular school.

Business in meat is wrong livelihood, according to every scripture I have ever read. Teachers who disagree are confused.

[amanitamusc]

Stocking the meat shelves in a grocery store?

[Simon E.]

Stocking the meat shelves in a grocery store?

For those who see Buddhadharma in terms of Right Livelihood and the N8FP, ( which is not everyone by any means ) stocking meat shelves in a grocery store is acceptable.

[DGA]

I used to work in the produce section of a very large produce warehouse. My job involved moving boxes of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other goods such as mushrooms from one pallet to another for shipment to supermarkets. The produce warehouse was connected to the dairy warehouse and beyond that was the meat warehouse and so on in one complex. It's quite an operation, really. Anyway, even though I'd signed on to work produce, and 90% of my time was spent moving onions and potatoes around, some 10% of my time was spent loading orders of pallets into 53' trailers for shipment. These orders would include dairy, eggs, fresh meat, and other grocery items such as dog food. That meant that even though I was a produce worker, I was also an occasional meathandler. Did I violate right livelihood in doing this work? Did the cat who lurked the premises hunting the mice that would sneak around the loading dock?

(it put me through my undergraduate years...)

[Simon E.]

No you did not. Neither would it if you had used a staff discount to buy some of that meat took it home, and cooked and ate it.
But some Chinese Sanghas would disagree.

I repeat, the important thing is to be consistent to our own schools and teachers. This can challenge some of our preconceptions.
I don't know what the current situation is at Samye-Ling, but at one time the late Akong Rinpoche had freezers installed so as to be able to buy whole sheep and pig carcasses in order to ' reduce the number of sentient beings killed in order to keep the Sangha fed '...

[DGA]

No you did not. Neither would it if you had used a staff discount to buy some of that meat took it home, and cooked and ate it.
But some Chinese Sanghas would disagree.

I repeat, the important thing is to be consistent to our own schools and teachers. This can challenge some of our preconceptions.
I don't know what the current situation is at Samye-Ling, but at one time the late Akong Rinpoche had freezers installed so as to be able to buy whole sheep and pig carcasses in order to ' reduce the number of sentient beings killed in order to keep the Sangha fed '...

That's my understanding too.

And with regard to your example of Samye Ling: I had a memorable conversation with my teacher Monshin Paul Naamon some years ago on the topic of differences in approach to feeding oneself and the first precept among Mahayana schools. He's a Tendai lineage holder, but also very familiar with Tibetan practices, having studied with Lama Zopa, and helping his teacher, Ichishima Sensei, who is a Tibetan scholar in Japan and translator for HHDL. His summary: Japanese schools generally don't object to eating a lot of shrimp or baby squid, for instance, because that means so many more sentient beings get a connection to Dharma. (Tendai Buddhist Institute has many birdfeeders of different sizes for a similar reason.) This in contrast to a Tibetan approach of everyone sharing in the bad juju of eating one animal, who at least has the benefit of being connected karmically to many practitioners. Both approaches share a similar logic (dependent origination), and both assume a virtuous intent of trying to bring ultimate benefit to all beings one encounters, even when turning those beings' dead bodies into crap in order to reproduce one's life and keep practicing another day.

Overall, I've been taught that it's best to spend your energy on your own practice, on doing your best, rather than worrying overmuch about what others do and how they do it--further, that it's easiest to assume that others are also doing the best they can too.

[Simon E.]

Abso -flippin'-lutely..

[seeker242]

Overall, I've been taught that it's best to spend your energy on your own practice, on doing your best, rather than worrying overmuch about what others do and how they do it--further, that it's easiest to assume that others are also doing the best they can too.

Unless their activity causes harm to others, then I think it's appropriate!