Doesn’t mean that if we get sick we just focus on getting arahanthood and not see a doctor.
2 Likes
There is no offense if a microorganism is killed, i.e., one we cannot see with the naked eye; not using a microscope.
When one drives a car, we undoubtedly are driving over many insects and some also get killed on the windshield; but the intent was just to drive from point A to point B, not for killing insects.
In a similar way, when doing construction, the intent is just to build a house, not for killing.
Yes, larger animals were / are valued more in the Tipitaka. Large royal animals; elephants, tigers, etc had higher value than insects. Their meat cannot be eaten, even if offered. Killing an animal is an offense, but much lower than killing a human, which is a parajika offense; so size and type of animal does matter.
1 Like
A mostly meat-based diet contributes to more killing than a vegetarian or vegan diet. This is because the animals raised for meat are fed grains, which included the harvesting of those grains, killing millions of insects; same as vegetarian diet, however, this is in addition to the animal that is consumed in a mostly meat-based diet.
1 Like
It is true. In the same way eating “pure meat” is not offensive because there is no killing intent.
If one cares about unintentional contribution to death of animals (like the unintentional contribution of “pure meat” eaters) he has to care about unintentional contribution of agriculture, construction, driving etc. as well, because the number is very high.
For an example there are vegetarian planters, builders etc. If they stop their job, it is a great contribution to save millions of insects and micro animals. Being vegetarian doesn’t seem to contribute that much. But they never stop there jobs.
And paying taxes to and working for the government are also unintentional contributions to killing humans (in war, punishments) and violence (by police, military). It is more serious contribution than of “pure meat” eaters. But the vegetarians don’t avoid from more serious contributions like this. They avoid only from “eating meat”.
That is what I wanted to question.
Still I don’t say all of them are stupids or cunning people because even some great people like Pipphali manavaka and Amagandha hermit etc. seemed to have such ideas.
I don’t vote or pay taxes. 
To endorse or vote for the commander and chief of the military is totally unfounded for monks to do. It does not matter if it is one party or the other. They are all the same.
However, it is important to understand that I’m on the side that eating meat is not a problem. Today, from village alms I received many curries. One or two of those had fish. I try to take a small amount from each packet. Today I took one small cube of fish, thinking about this thread and what is right to do. However, normally I’m a vegetarian. There is no “inconsistency” to talk about. It is what it is.
2 Likes
I’m not really a fan of the vegetarian food still technically involves killing argument (which it does). Its kinda like the argument that EV’s still cause pollution thru mining etc., therefore there’s no benefit to driving an EV.
Of course that isnt the point, EV’s cause less pollution than ICE cars, which is why it should be encouraged/subsidized for the good of the environment/air quality around us.
As we are not jains, Buddhist kamma requires some degree of direct involvement and intention. Otherwise we couldnt do much of anything without creating bad kamma.
Drive to work, you just polluted the air and indirectly contributed to someone’s health issues from smog.
Buy a pair of shoes, you just contributed to some child labor camp in China.
Purchase a Buddha statue from the store, the metal used came from a mine that is used to fund the civil war in some African country.
We should treat vegetarianism the same as we do things like conserving gas/electricity or driving hybrids/EVs. There are some practical benefits to it like saving money/convenience of not having to go to the gas station (and in the case of vegetarianism/reducing meat consumption health benefits as well as saving time on cooking), as well as some benefits to the world as a whole as a plus.
We should NOT delude ourselves or modify the texts/come up with ancillary arguments saying that vegetarianism is karmically beneficial to you when it’s not. But neither is driving an EV or buying products guaranteed to have not been made with child labor. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do those things though.
Why veganism is not good kamma?
I think at most the texts would say it’s not bad kamma to eat triple clean meat. But it doesn’t imply going vegan doesn’t have extra good kamma.
Going by kamma is generated by good roots, the compassion motivation which underlies environment, animal and health all contribute to the wholesome root of non-aversion, thus doing things with this motivation generates good kamma, like going vegan.
Just like observing the precepts is an ongoing good merits thing, by a determination, which is not actively in the mind all the time, so too, being committed vegan would be similar to a precept taking, so the passive benefit and good merits can also be continuous even if one doesn’t actively reflects on why one is vegan every time one eats. Just like one doesn’t need to remember why killing is bad every time one refrains from killing.
3 Likes
Good point. While it’s clear it is not bad karma to eat meat, choosing to not eat meat could be good kamma. There’s no evidence in the texts that this is actually the case from what I’ve seen. But it is possible. Same goes with driving EVs, recycling, and consuming ethically made products.
1 Like
There are some benefits, besides health benefits. Although I have heard that these pure meat no carbs eaters do well.
I’m a fan at looking at life in a multi-life way. If you, by an unfortunate roll of the kammic dice, are born as an animal and you have a big habit of being a meat eater, it could be very likely that you would be born as a hunting animal. Unlike zen that says there is lion-nature and no bad kamma for lions who hunt and kill, that is not that case with Theravada. Killing is killing. Once one is born in the animal realm, especially a hunting animal, the spiral downwards continues and one is especially lost in saṃsāra.
If one is a vegetarian and really habitually detests meat, under similar unfortunate animal birth circumstances, the odds are better that one gets a vegetarian animal birth.
What about one who does both, but does not hunt? We could speculate about that too.
I think in all cases, one should do what one can to be successful in this life. However, a preliminary to concentration, mentioned in the metta sutta is to be contented and easy to support. (santussako ca subharo ca) How easy contented are you? How will that affect your concentration and your chance to get out of saṃsāra now that you are human with the requisites to attain the escape?
I reflect on those items too. As I said before, I’m mostly veg and try to be that way. Although some recent new yagu they have been serving is now with some chicken in it. I tend to be eating that now as it lands on my breakfast tray by the helper. Breakfast, I don’t really choose my food. I only eat a small snack arranged by the helper.
2 Likes