Karma and killing sentient beings

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:08 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:00 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:32 pm
There is only vipaka if you see, hear of or order a sentient being killed for you.
Thanks. That is what I was seeking to clarify. :)

What if you confine it, beat it, skin it alive etc.....surely there must be vipaka from the karma of making other beings suffer that way?
Sure, if you personally do these things or directly order others to do them, then there is vipaka. But if you didn't, there is none, even if you see it happening.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Karma and Eating Sentient Beings

Post by Mantrik » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:08 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:00 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:32 pm
There is only vipaka if you see, hear of or order a sentient being killed for you.
Thanks. That is what I was seeking to clarify. :)

What if you confine it, beat it, skin it alive etc.....surely there must be vipaka from the karma of making other beings suffer that way?
Sure, if you personally do these things or directly order others to do them, then there is vipaka. But if you didn't, there is none, even if you see it happening.
Thanks. Those are really important points for this thread. I hope they don't get lost. :)
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:18 am

I asked for this to be split off from the Great Vegetarian Debate as it is an important point in its own right.

Whatever our personal feelings are, how our actions create Vipaka, or don't create Vipaka, is important to know.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Vasana » Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:39 am

So is there vipaka if you purchase meat from a farmer or a company who you know will put some of that money into further killing of which it is probable you will also purchase in the future?

Isn't any support of another's actions still support?
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:54 am

Vasana wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:39 am
So is there vipaka if you purchase meat from a farmer or a company who you know will put some of that money into further killing of which it is probable you will also purchase in the future?

Isn't any support of another's actions still support?
Here we have to distinguish between personal views and what relates to vipaka.

Malcolm was clear about what will create vipaka.

So, there may be no vipaka from buying meat as you suggest, but I would not do so because I regard it as immoral to cause future suffering and death. You can't break the cycle of slaughter without removing the market for the meat. Some use the argument that we may as well buy meat or someone else will, so the animal would die anyway. That thinking guarantees the slaughter will never end. I regard that as imcompatible with 'ahimsa'.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

Miroku
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Miroku » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:21 am

Mantrik wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:54 am
Vasana wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:39 am
So is there vipaka if you purchase meat from a farmer or a company who you know will put some of that money into further killing of which it is probable you will also purchase in the future?

Isn't any support of another's actions still support?
Here we have to distinguish between personal views and what relates to vipaka.

Malcolm was clear about what will create vipaka.

So, there may be no vipaka from buying meat as you suggest, but I would not do so because I regard it as immoral to cause future suffering and death. You can't break the cycle of slaughter without removing the market for the meat. Some use the argument that we may as well buy meat or someone else will, so the animal would die anyway. That thinking guarantees the slaughter will never end. I regard that as imcompatible with 'ahimsa'.
Goddammit. I have just discovered bone broth and you post this Mantrik... :)
Child, if you are not hypocritical and out of control, that is conduct.
~ Padampa Sangye

You say such clever things to people, but you do not apply them to yourself.
The faults within you are the ones to be exposed.
~ Padampa Sangye

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:38 am

Miroku wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:21 am

Goddammit. I have just discovered bone broth and you post this Mantrik... :)
Sorry, I'm already derailing the thread. I'll try to stick to Vipaka, separate from the vegetarian debate.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:52 pm

Vasana wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:39 am
So is there vipaka if you purchase meat from a farmer or a company who you know will put some of that money into further killing of which it is probable you will also purchase in the future?

Isn't any support of another's actions still support?
If you make this argument, let's say you buy a tomato from a grocer. And that grocer also sells meat, milk, cheese, etc., all products that require killing (cows have to be impregnated and with calves to make milk). If you take seriously this reasoning you have presented, you have to accept that spending any money at a grocers is "support."

I suggest that there are two issues, which are unrelated to one another. One concerns the ethics of animal husbandry over humanitarian and environmental issues. This is a valid discussion on its own merits. It is demonstrable that industrial agriculture is toxic and bad for the environment in general. It is demonstrable that the conditions of the animals in Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFO) are dreadful.

The second, and the one that concerns us here, is to what extent we bear a karmic burden if we eat meat or participate in an economy in which this practice of eating meat is present. And what, if any impact meat eating has on our path. The latter issue is resolved via an examination of three vows. Analyzed this way, meat is permissible for śrāvakas, forbidden for Mahāyanīs, and permissible for those who practice Niruttarayogatantra (but not practitioner of the three lower tantras).
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Miroku
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Miroku » Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:52 pm
Vasana wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:39 am
So is there vipaka if you purchase meat from a farmer or a company who you know will put some of that money into further killing of which it is probable you will also purchase in the future?

Isn't any support of another's actions still support?
If you make this argument, let's say you buy a tomato from a grocer. And that grocer also sells meat, milk, cheese, etc., all products that require killing (cows have to be impregnated and with calves to make milk). If you take seriously this reasoning you have presented, you have to accept that spending any money at a grocers is "support."

I suggest that there are two issues, which are unrelated to one another. One concerns the ethics of animal husbandry over humanitarian and environmental issues. This is a valid discussion on its own merits. It is demonstrable that industrial agriculture is toxic and bad for the environment in general. It is demonstrable that the conditions of the animals in Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFO) are dreadful.

The second, and the one that concerns us here, is to what extent we bear a karmic burden if we eat meat or participate in an economy in which this practice of eating meat is present. And what, if any impact meat eating has on our path. The latter issue is resolved via an examination of three vows. Analyzed this way, meat is permissible for śrāvakas, forbidden for Mahāyanīs, and permissible for those who practice Niruttarayogatantra (but not practitioner of the three lower tantras).
Why is it permissible for tantrikas? Shouldnt they also abide according to vows of sravakas and mahayanis? And is there some place where I can find them in detail or some essence of them that is easily understood?
Child, if you are not hypocritical and out of control, that is conduct.
~ Padampa Sangye

You say such clever things to people, but you do not apply them to yourself.
The faults within you are the ones to be exposed.
~ Padampa Sangye

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm

Another perspective on this from a Jonangpa Lama friend:

''In an attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals, some individuals allege that the Buddha permitted the consumption of meat under three conditions. This is a patently specious claim.

The Pali text of the Jivaka Sutta, the putative source of the infamous ‘three purities’ argument, states:

“I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. I say that meat should not be eaten in those three instances.

“I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.”

Clearly, the Buddha is stipulating here that if a monk inadvertently consumes meat that has been placed in his begging bowl, he is not at fault. His action is pure. However, if he sees, hears, or even suspects that there is animal flesh in his bowl, he must not eat it.

Later commentators gratuitously inserted the phrase “that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself” after each repetition of the word ‘suspected’. The phrase does not appear in the original Pali text. It is a spurious addition, making it seem as if the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat when the animal was not expressly killed to feed them, or at least when they did not see, hear, or suspect it.''
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:30 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm
Another perspective on this from a Jonangpa Lama friend:

''In an attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals, some individuals allege that the Buddha permitted the consumption of meat under three conditions. This is a patently specious claim.

The Pali text of the Jivaka Sutta, the putative source of the infamous ‘three purities’ argument, states:

“I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. I say that meat should not be eaten in those three instances.

“I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.”

Clearly, the Buddha is stipulating here that if a monk inadvertently consumes meat that has been placed in his begging bowl, he is not at fault. His action is pure. However, if he sees, hears, or even suspects that there is animal flesh in his bowl, he must not eat it.

Later commentators gratuitously inserted the phrase “that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself” after each repetition of the word ‘suspected’. The phrase does not appear in the original Pali text. It is a spurious addition, making it seem as if the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat when the animal was not expressly killed to feed them, or at least when they did not see, hear, or suspect it.''
This is a mistaken point of view. It is not correct at all. Your Jonang Lama friend needs to read Sapan's Three Vows as well as Bhavaviveka's perspective on the issue. Of course, Madhyamakas in general regard Tathāgatagarbha sutras as provisional as well.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Simon E.
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Simon E. » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:52 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm
Another perspective on this from a Jonangpa Lama friend:

''In an attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals, some individuals allege that the Buddha permitted the consumption of meat under three conditions. This is a patently specious claim.

The Pali text of the Jivaka Sutta, the putative source of the infamous ‘three purities’ argument, states:

“I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. I say that meat should not be eaten in those three instances.

“I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.”

Clearly, the Buddha is stipulating here that if a monk inadvertently consumes meat that has been placed in his begging bowl, he is not at fault. His action is pure. However, if he sees, hears, or even suspects that there is animal flesh in his bowl, he must not eat it.

Later commentators gratuitously inserted the phrase “that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself” after each repetition of the word ‘suspected’. The phrase does not appear in the original Pali text. It is a spurious addition, making it seem as if the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat when the animal was not expressly killed to feed them, or at least when they did not see, hear, or suspect it.''
By that criterion half of the Theravadin Sangha in Thailand, Myanmar and Sri Lanka would have starved to death many years ago.
The Sangha of those countries which include some of the most prominent scholars of the Pali Canon unambiguously follow the interpretation that Malcolm has suggested above. This in my experience has nothing to do with their 'craving blood'.
The Theravadin monks that I know best..the sangha of Ajahn Chah's succesessors, frequently drop hints ( they are not allowed to ask directly) that they would prefer to be offered vegetarian food.
Only to sigh when lay supporters bring dozens of Big Macs and place them in their begging bowls...
They are encouraged to be detached from choosing this or that diet. A model frequently held up as showing the correct attitude is the monk into whose bowl the finger of a leper fell as the leper made a food offering..and the monk ate the finger and all.
This might be an apocryphal story..but the attitude of the monk to offerings is vividly illustrated by it.
Back to fishin' folks... :namaste:

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:22 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:30 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm
Another perspective on this from a Jonangpa Lama friend:

''In an attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals, some individuals allege that the Buddha permitted the consumption of meat under three conditions. This is a patently specious claim.

The Pali text of the Jivaka Sutta, the putative source of the infamous ‘three purities’ argument, states:

“I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. I say that meat should not be eaten in those three instances.

“I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.”

Clearly, the Buddha is stipulating here that if a monk inadvertently consumes meat that has been placed in his begging bowl, he is not at fault. His action is pure. However, if he sees, hears, or even suspects that there is animal flesh in his bowl, he must not eat it.

Later commentators gratuitously inserted the phrase “that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself” after each repetition of the word ‘suspected’. The phrase does not appear in the original Pali text. It is a spurious addition, making it seem as if the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat when the animal was not expressly killed to feed them, or at least when they did not see, hear, or suspect it.''
This is a mistaken point of view. It is not correct at all. Your Jonang Lama friend needs to read Sapan's Three Vows as well as Bhavaviveka's perspective on the issue. Of course, Madhyamakas in general regard Tathāgatagarbha sutras as provisional as well.
I suspect he has. ;)

Well, let's take it one aspect at a time. I think there are 2 aspects to this:

1. Is he correct that the original Pali in the Jivaka Sutta did not contain the 'slaughtered for oneself' qualifying clause, and are there contemporary Sanskrit texts which support or undermine this assumption?

2. How does that apply to the Three Vows and those who practice according to them - is the vipaka going to be different for each of the three?

Well, it depends on one's perspective. If you regard the 3 Vows as applicable to different and to some extent (containing) discrete forms of Buddhism, one may argue that those Hinayana monastic rules are only appplicable to them. If however, you regard all later forms as revisions and developments of an original set of (Pali) teachings, then you are more likely to form the view that they also amended things in an 'attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals'.

I think your original explanation is pertinent here, in defining not only according to the 3 Vows but difefrentiating within Tantra itself. (Sorry, I've done a search but can't find the quote in which you separate out HYT from the lower tantras or I'de repeat it here.)
Last edited by Mantrik on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:27 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:52 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm
Another perspective on this from a Jonangpa Lama friend:

''In an attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals, some individuals allege that the Buddha permitted the consumption of meat under three conditions. This is a patently specious claim.

The Pali text of the Jivaka Sutta, the putative source of the infamous ‘three purities’ argument, states:

“I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected. I say that meat should not be eaten in those three instances.

“I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.”

Clearly, the Buddha is stipulating here that if a monk inadvertently consumes meat that has been placed in his begging bowl, he is not at fault. His action is pure. However, if he sees, hears, or even suspects that there is animal flesh in his bowl, he must not eat it.

Later commentators gratuitously inserted the phrase “that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself” after each repetition of the word ‘suspected’. The phrase does not appear in the original Pali text. It is a spurious addition, making it seem as if the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat when the animal was not expressly killed to feed them, or at least when they did not see, hear, or suspect it.''
By that criterion half of the Theravadin Sangha in Thailand, Myanmar and Sri Lanka would have starved to death many years ago.
The Sangha of those countries which include some of the most prominent scholars of the Pali Canon unambiguously follow the interpretation that Malcolm has suggested above. This in my experience has nothing to do with their 'craving blood'.
The Theravadin monks that I know best..the sangha of Ajahn Chah's succesessors, frequently drop hints ( they are not allowed to ask directly) that they would prefer to be offered vegetarian food.
Only to sigh when lay supporters bring dozens of Big Macs and place them in their begging bowls...
They are encouraged to be detached from choosing this or that diet. A model frequently held up as showing the correct attitude is the monk into whose bowl the finger of a leper fell as the leper made a food offering..and the monk ate the finger and all.
This might be an apocryphal story..but the attitude of the monk to offerings is vividly illustrated by it.
I doubt that they would have 'starved to death' - millions in India live quite well without meat, and as you say some of them actually prefer to be offered veg food.

Or they may have been taught by those who over many generations wished the Vinaya to permit meat eating and so perpetuated the modified version? Just think, they may have been able to refuse the Big Macs if that is indeed what the original Pali said.

However, I think I read that Shakyamuni allowed the monks to amend the rules according to circumstances, so if they wanted to change that rule it would have been fine.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:48 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:22 pm

Well, let's take it one aspect at a time. I think there are 2 aspects to this:

1. Is he correct that the original Pali in the Jivaka Sutta did not contain the 'slaughtered for oneself' qualifying clause, and are there contemporary Sanskrit texts which support or undermine this assumption?
This paper undermines the assertion of your friend: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf
2. How does that apply to the Three Vows and those who practice according to them - is the vipaka going to be different for each of the three?
The consumption of meat is permitted for ṥrāvakas; forbidden for bodhisattvas, and permitted for those who practice inner tantras (but prohibited for those who follow outer tantras).
Well, it depends on one's perspective. If you regard the 3 Vows as applicable to different and to some extent (containing) discrete forms of Buddhism, one may argue that those Hinayana monastic rules are only appplicable to them. If however, you regard all later forms as revisions and developments of an original set of (Pali) teachings, then you are more likely to form the view that they also amended things in an 'attempt to justify their appetite for the flesh and blood of animals'.
The three vows are related to the path that one follows. The higher vow transforms the lower vow. Thus śrāvakas are absolutely forbidden from handling money, owning property, killing sentient beings, and drinking alcohol. Bodhisattvas may handle money, own property, and even kill sentient beings, if warranted and drink alcohol, but are prohibited from eating meat. Practitioners of inner tantras are permitted to handle money, own property, kill sentient beings if warranted, drink alcohol, and eat meat.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:48 pm

This paper undermines the assertion of your friend: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf
Thanks for the clarification - I edited to ask about the levels of Tantra but you have answered it here. :)

The document does not discuss whether an earlier version did not contain the 'killed for me' aspect.
It does, however, show an agreement across Pali suttas and also a Sanskrit fragment.
I don't have the knowledge to be able to prove that an earlier version existed, igonored by the paper your link leads to, but I'll certainly forwward it to the Lama and ask him.

It does, however, intepret one important aspect:
''Both versions say that the Buddha ..(whoc denies a rumour about his own conduct) .... clarifies that it is improper for his monastics to take meat when they have seen, heard, or suspected (by way of reasoning infer) that the animal has been killed for their sake.

So a reasonable inference that killing has happened 'for their sake' is important, not so much if the actually order it.
The importance for modern life is that it is therefore not necessary to see or hear the animal killed, only to have a reasonable suspicion that it was, and that there is a link to the meat offered, bought etc.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:22 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:09 pm

It does, however, intepret one important aspect:
''Both versions say that the Buddha ..(whoc denies a rumour about his own conduct) .... clarifies that it is improper for his monastics to take meat when they have seen, heard, or suspected (by way of reasoning infer) that the animal has been killed for their sake.

So a reasonable inference that killing has happened 'for their sake' is important, not so much if the actually order it.
The importance for modern life is that it is therefore not necessary to see or hear the animal killed, only to have a reasonable suspicion that it was, and that there is a link to the meat offered, bought etc.
If you think a lobster has been killed because you order lobster, then it applies. If you are eating a steak however, there is no way that animal could be reasonably inferred to have been killed on your specific behalf.

When a beef cow is slaughtered in Denver, it is impossible for that butcher to know who will consume it unless you ordered it from the butcher himself. Likewise, if an ancient villager bought some meat that had been slaughtered the day before, when offered to a monk or nun, they can accept it.

This is a completely different issue from whether or not there should be abattoirs at all.

However, as long as we live in societies dominated by non-buddhists there will always be meat readily available. Thus, eating meat or not is a personal choice entirely unrelated to karma as long as one does not order, see, or know that animal was killed specifically for oneself, as in ordering a lobster and unlike ordering a streak.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:22 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:09 pm

It does, however, intepret one important aspect:
''Both versions say that the Buddha ..(whoc denies a rumour about his own conduct) .... clarifies that it is improper for his monastics to take meat when they have seen, heard, or suspected (by way of reasoning infer) that the animal has been killed for their sake.

So a reasonable inference that killing has happened 'for their sake' is important, not so much if the actually order it.
The importance for modern life is that it is therefore not necessary to see or hear the animal killed, only to have a reasonable suspicion that it was, and that there is a link to the meat offered, bought etc.
If you think a lobster has been killed because you order lobster, then it applies. If you are eating a steak however, there is no way that animal could be reasonably inferred to have been killed on your specific behalf.

When a beef cow is slaughtered in Denver, it is impossible for that butcher to know who will consume it unless you ordered it from the butcher himself. Likewise, if an ancient villager bought some meat that had been slaughtered the day before, when offered to a monk or nun, they can accept it.

This is a completely different issue from whether or not there should be abattoirs at all.

However, as long as we live in societies dominated by non-buddhists there will always be meat readily available. Thus, eating meat or not is a personal choice entirely unrelated to karma as long as one does not order, see, or know that animal was killed specifically for oneself, as in ordering a lobster and unlike ordering a streak.
Oh yes, I see that. I guess it depends also upon the monk who is drawing the inference from what information they have. You are saying that there is correct inference and incorrect inference, but maybe all that is required is an honest inference that the meat may not be suitable to eat, even if the connection is indirect, rather than dealing in absolutes?

For example, I think it is pretty unlikely that impoverished villagers would just happen to have killed a goat, let alone a cow, separately from knowing the monks were coming around. So I may infer that this was done the day before precisely because they wanted the blessings from giving the meat to the monks. So assuming two monks were offered the meat, one may infer it is OK, the other may infer it is not so.
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:50 pm

Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:33 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:22 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:09 pm

It does, however, intepret one important aspect:
''Both versions say that the Buddha ..(whoc denies a rumour about his own conduct) .... clarifies that it is improper for his monastics to take meat when they have seen, heard, or suspected (by way of reasoning infer) that the animal has been killed for their sake.

So a reasonable inference that killing has happened 'for their sake' is important, not so much if the actually order it.
The importance for modern life is that it is therefore not necessary to see or hear the animal killed, only to have a reasonable suspicion that it was, and that there is a link to the meat offered, bought etc.
If you think a lobster has been killed because you order lobster, then it applies. If you are eating a steak however, there is no way that animal could be reasonably inferred to have been killed on your specific behalf.

When a beef cow is slaughtered in Denver, it is impossible for that butcher to know who will consume it unless you ordered it from the butcher himself. Likewise, if an ancient villager bought some meat that had been slaughtered the day before, when offered to a monk or nun, they can accept it.

This is a completely different issue from whether or not there should be abattoirs at all.

However, as long as we live in societies dominated by non-buddhists there will always be meat readily available. Thus, eating meat or not is a personal choice entirely unrelated to karma as long as one does not order, see, or know that animal was killed specifically for oneself, as in ordering a lobster and unlike ordering a streak.
Oh yes, I see that. I guess it depends also upon the monk who is drawing the inference from what information they have. You are saying that there is correct inference and incorrect inference, but maybe all that is required is an honest inference that the meat may not be suitable to eat, even if the connection is indirect, rather than dealing in absolutes?
Some people argue, erroneously in my estimation, that meat for sale is the same as meat ordered specifically for oneself. However, if someone feels that personally, that is up to them. But if they try to convince me I should accept that point of view I will refute it.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Mantrik
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Karma and killing sentient beings

Post by Mantrik » Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:50 pm
Mantrik wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:33 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:22 pm


If you think a lobster has been killed because you order lobster, then it applies. If you are eating a steak however, there is no way that animal could be reasonably inferred to have been killed on your specific behalf.

When a beef cow is slaughtered in Denver, it is impossible for that butcher to know who will consume it unless you ordered it from the butcher himself. Likewise, if an ancient villager bought some meat that had been slaughtered the day before, when offered to a monk or nun, they can accept it.

This is a completely different issue from whether or not there should be abattoirs at all.

However, as long as we live in societies dominated by non-buddhists there will always be meat readily available. Thus, eating meat or not is a personal choice entirely unrelated to karma as long as one does not order, see, or know that animal was killed specifically for oneself, as in ordering a lobster and unlike ordering a streak.
Oh yes, I see that. I guess it depends also upon the monk who is drawing the inference from what information they have. You are saying that there is correct inference and incorrect inference, but maybe all that is required is an honest inference that the meat may not be suitable to eat, even if the connection is indirect, rather than dealing in absolutes?
Some people argue, erroneously in my estimation, that meat for sale is the same as meat ordered specifically for oneself. However, if someone feels that personally, that is up to them. But if they try to convince me I should accept that point of view I will refute it.
In terms of vipaka rather than personal preference, would you agree that both monks in my example are fine, as both either ate the meat or did not eat the meat according to their honest inference?
http://www.khyung.com

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)

Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests