A cruel scene in singapore
-
No worries. I am just having a fruitful discussion here. I am a neutral party and only like to seek more answers.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:My apologies. I misunderstood your statement (i thought you meant the released fish is going to be a prey anyway).
However, going by your logic, exterminating lions, tigers, eagles and all carnivorous animals produces good karma?
Perhaps. 'Intention' is the key here.
Anyway, again, I ask a question.
By exterminating lions, tigers, etc (all the top of the food chain), is that necessarily good karma?
Coz you would leave the 2nd level as top of the food chain, and their numbers would then spread and the destruction to the 3rd level of the food chain will increase manyfold.
in this case, those on the 3rd level of the food chain would hate the person who killed off all of those on the top of the food chain.
Basically, I look at it from multi-perspective
You save the fish, the fish is 'grateful'
You release the fish to the river, it starts eating mosquito larvae.
Because if you had not released the fish into the river, maybe not so many mosquito larvae would have been eaten.
Going by the Karma theory, that would mean that the larvae would be pissed by your act of kindness, coz in their perspective, its an act of cruelty.
Buddha may say 'Those who did not have the intention is innocent'. But is that necessarily so?
The US, based on their intelligence, bombed the wrong house and accidentally killed innocent people. Is that also innocence based on buddhism teachings, since they did not have the intention to kill innocent people? -
So just because plants may not be able to remember much, means its warranted that we can eat much more of them, and sacrifice more of them than animals?Originally posted by bohiruci:First , according to Buddha , and science have found out that
the heart of grass does not have experience, consciousness component and cannot remember well
though some scientist place plants to listen to Mozart ,but how long it take to grow well ? 3 months
if human placed in a music environment,how fast ? faster than that
Plants eating is considered lesser karma ,becos when we harvest the plants
the worms will be killed accidentally
I have a shifu who always ordered this crop of vegetable from Cameroon Highland which the family chant Great Compassion Mantra with ordinary water to spray without the fertiliser and pesticide
remember intention is STILL CENTRAL OF BUDDHA TEACHING
we want to kill animal , but does the animal remember who his slayer is ?
yes
thats why the karma is heavy and next life we will encounter ppl chasing for our lives
What if one day, Science finds out that plants can remember, and can know pain, sadness, etc?
So what are human beings going to do? Starve and die?
And judging from how you mentioned about the animal remembering who his slayer is, it means that all I need to do is avoid killing the animal, but then I can continue to consume as much as I want, coz the animal won't know it was I who increased the demand of meat, and therefore increases the no. of animals the butchers kill? -
I used to think that plants are completely biological functions. Then I was watching one of my taiwanese teacher's talks the other day and he explained that plants also have awareness/dharma nature, but they are not the same sort of sentient being as us because they do not have discriminative function. But they do respond to environment, sunlight, etc, and that is also due to awareness. Our forummer Thusness also agreed with this.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:Someone please answer this. I've been asked this many times but is unable to give an intelligent reply.
'Vegetables also living things what. You eat them you also kill them.'
So if they have awareness why can we eat them? Because they do not have dualistic consciousness, discriminative mind of a sentient being and do not create karma or undergo rebirth, they do not suffer. But by killing an animal, we are causing them to suffer because of their dualistic identification, discrimination, and attachment. They will attach to pain and their body and cause suffeng. So we must never kill a sentient being. -
No, that is not possible because a plant does not have dualistic consciousness that suffers and give rise to dualistic, negative emotions.Originally posted by soul_rage:So just because plants may not be able to remember much, means its warranted that we can eat much more of them, and sacrifice more of them than animals?
What if one day, Science finds out that plants can remember, and can know pain, sadness, etc?
So what are human beings going to do? Starve and die?
And judging from how you mentioned about the animal remembering who his slayer is, it means that all I need to do is avoid killing the animal, but then I can continue to consume as much as I want, coz the animal won't know it was I who increased the demand of meat, and therefore increases the no. of animals the butchers kill?
Anyway in the first place plants do not have a nervous system and cannot react mentally to any events. Their reaction does not go through conceptual thinking or 'mental thinking'. Just like if I drop a molten iron ball on your hand, it is not your mind that reacts first, but awareness and the immediate pulling away of your hand.
As my Taiwanese teacher has often said... Awareness is your Buddha-Nature, it is natural and spontaneous every moment. Breathing, walking, seeing, hearing, all are happening spontaneously as the expression of your Buddha Nature but we miss that due to our attachment to mental constructs.
Now going back to the hand, the pulling away of the hand and the immediate pure sensation of the pain does NOT involve dualistic concepts and thoughts -- such as 'I am in pain'. 'I am in pain' only comes after the pure sensation and forms due to our karmic propensity, forming a dualistic relation 'I' and 'pain'.
The pure feeling of pain, or sound, or any perception arises first as awareness, just that. You feel the pain first, or rather more accurate, feeling arises first as pure awareness before you 'know' or mentally perceive the pain. The pain is simply a spontaneous manifestation of your own nature.
Next, it is true that any form of impure meat that is consumed has heavier karma. It does not however mean that eating frozen meat is totally free from karma -- it is just less because it is indirect and not direct killing. Direct killing is more serious, that is why I said previously in this topic,.....Five Clean Sources of Meat (article)
...Buddha understands the ignorance and habits of sentient beings that have accumulated from aeons of their many past lives. In order to provide sentient beings with an expedient means of embracing Buddhism, those who are not able to convert to a vegetarian diet on a long term basis are permitted to consume meat provided:
(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter...
That is why ordered seafood is not Pure Meat. Frozen meat can at least be considered 'clean meat' -- it is not direct killing, so the karma is not so strong. Nevertheless it is still killing so being vegetarian is best. But not everyone wants to be a vegetarian, so the least is we must try eat only the 5 clean meat. I myself try to abide by this, as I am not a vegetarian. -
If so, using the same logic, if the fish is not released, then the level below it will grow in number and bring more harm to next level.Originally posted by soul_rage:No worries. I am just having a fruitful discussion here. I am a neutral party and only like to seek more answers.
Anyway, again, I ask a question.
By exterminating lions, tigers, etc (all the top of the food chain), is that necessarily good karma?
Coz you would leave the 2nd level as top of the food chain, and their numbers would then spread and the destruction to the 3rd level of the food chain will increase manyfold.
in this case, those on the 3rd level of the food chain would hate the person who killed off all of those on the top of the food chain.
Anyway, release the fish or not is not the purpose of me bringing out this topic coz I know if people like to eat fish, they can come out with 1000 more reasons of eating it.
My concern is if they for sure want to kill the fish, why can't they give it a quick death. Even if the fish will not remember who is the killer, the karma will know it. -
'For your sake' means it's intended for you as an individual.Originally posted by SnowFlag:The slaughter is committed for those who wants to eat meat. Except that the slaughter is done first, then see who wants to buy. So how can say not commited for his sake?
In Buddha's time, he wasn't earning, so he couldn't be too choosy about the food given by others.
But now, most of us makes a living and can actually choose to buy or not.
Frozen meat is sold to masses but not directed specifically to you, SnowFlag, as an individual. It is not killed specifically for your purpose.
Therefore the karma is lighter. But doesn't mean no karma. See my previous post. -
You also one who like to discuss about this ah? good.Originally posted by soul_rage:So just because plants may not be able to remember much, means its warranted that we can eat much more of them, and sacrifice more of them than animals?
What if one day, Science finds out that plants can remember, and can know pain, sadness, etc?
So what are human beings going to do? Starve and die?
There are many more interesting articles in the buddhism forum.
Feel free to take a look. -
I am, I am not against Buddhism, but I am just asking questions that warrant a good discussion in order to understand more.Originally posted by justdoit77:You also one who like to discuss about this ah? good.
There are many more interesting articles in the buddhism forum.
Feel free to take a look.
Amongst the religions, in my personal opinion, Buddhism is one that is closest to my heart, because it stems out from a philosophy on how we should live our life, similar to how I set out my own philosophies for my life.
So for those who are devout Buddhists, please pardon me for any unintended offence. I respect your beliefs but I wish to understand how you view things that happen in life. -
Precisely, you got my point. Saving the fish may or may not be a good thing.Originally posted by justdoit77:If so, using the same logic, if the fish is not released, then the level below it will grow in number and bring more harm to next level.
Anyway, release the fish or not is not the purpose of me bringing out this topic coz I know if people like to eat fish, they can come out with 1000 more reasons of eating it.
My concern is if they for sure want to kill the fish, why can't they give it a quick death. Even if the fish will not remember who is the killer, the karma will know it.
It could help or it could cause more harm.
However, I agree with you that if we should eat a fish, we should give it a quick death. That is what differentiates us from animals.
For instance, an animal uses its instinct to bring a quick death to a prey because it wishes to quickly take it down and bring it away so that other predators do not come along to snatch the carcass. However, in the event which they cannot give a quick death, they will just eat the prey alive. I guess this is Nature's way of attempting to reduce pain to the victim (by giving an instinct to the predator to kill quickly)
But for us humans, we should give it a quick death because we do not wish the animal to suffer. Abstaining totally from meat is not perceived by me as the correct thing to do. In this sense, I agree with other forumers here on the issue of INTENTION.
I personally minimize (and moving towards abstain) eating live drunken prawns (the type where the prawn is thrown alive into the wok, etc), because there are less painful ways of eating prawns. -
I would like to pose a question to the above. Does that mean that if we were not to violate any of the five points above, we are able to consume meat in peace? Wouldn't that be deluding yourself that an animal still had to be slaughtered for our meal?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:...Buddha understands the ignorance and habits of sentient beings that have accumulated from aeons of their many past lives. In order to provide sentient beings with an expedient means of embracing Buddhism, those who are not able to convert to a vegetarian diet on a long term basis are permitted to consume meat provided:
(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter... -
Dear Eternal,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, that is not possible because a plant does not have dualistic consciousness that suffers and give rise to dualistic, negative emotions.
Anyway in the first place plants do not have a nervous system and cannot react mentally to any events. Their reaction does not go through conceptual thinking or 'mental thinking'. Just like if I drop a molten iron ball on your hand, it is not your mind that reacts first, but awareness and the immediate pulling away of your hand.
As my Taiwanese teacher has often said... Awareness is your Buddha-Nature, it is natural and spontaneous every moment. Breathing, walking, seeing, hearing, all are happening spontaneously as the expression of your Buddha Nature but we miss that due to our attachment to mental constructs.
Now going back to the hand, the pulling away of the hand and the immediate pure sensation of the pain does NOT involve dualistic concepts and thoughts -- such as 'I am in pain'. 'I am in pain' only comes after the pure sensation and forms due to our karmic propensity, forming a dualistic relation 'I' and 'pain'.
The pure feeling of pain, or sound, or any perception arises first as awareness, just that. You feel the pain first, or rather more accurate, feeling arises first as pure awareness before you 'know' or mentally perceive the pain. The pain is simply a spontaneous manifestation of your own nature.
Next, it is true that any form of impure meat that is consumed has heavier karma. It does not however mean that eating frozen meat is totally free from karma -- it is just less because it is indirect and not direct killing. Direct killing is more serious, that is why I said previously in this topic,
Consciousness stems from human's understanding of the universe. Its a perspective taken from humans that consciousness is the one that separates awareness of pain and not.
Yet, is our understanding truly comprehensive? That plants really do not suffer, or is it more because we are looking for a replacement to meat (where we can see visually the animal's pain) to comfort our souls?
Humans are visual creatures. Just because a plant cannot move or cannot react to the cooking of it 'alive' doesn't mean that in its perspective it knows no pain.
that said, I agree with your views on Awareness, because I believe that awareness helps to improve a person's nature, or his character. There is a possibility to mentally detach your mind from the pain, so that you can hold a bowl of soup and reach the table even though it has scalded your hand, rather than dropping the bowl onto the floor. -
(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personallyOriginally posted by Croaking_Toad:I would like to pose a question to the above. Does that mean that if we were not to violate any of the five points above, we are able to consume meat in peace? Wouldn't that be deluding yourself that an animal still had to be slaughtered for our meal?
Yes. Most of us don't slaughter personally. Pass.
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
He did not instruct others to slaughter. Its more based on market demand and supply. He did not personally instruct others to slaughter. Pass
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
It was not for his sake that the slaughter was committed, but is because of economic needs. Pass
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
Never witness. Pass
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter...
Never hear. Pass
So given the way humans can twist and turn, we can easily circumvent all the above. -
You never mention who bought or ordered the meat. You can still object to the meat even when slaughter thus lessening economical demand. Hence fail criteria.Originally posted by soul_rage:(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
Yes. Most of us don't slaughter personally. Pass.
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
He did not instruct others to slaughter. Its more based on market demand and supply. He did not personally instruct others to slaughter. Pass
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
It was not for his sake that the slaughter was committed, but is because of economic needs. Pass
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
Never witness. Pass
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter...
Never hear. Pass
So given the way humans can twist and turn, we can easily circumvent all the above. -
depends on how you argue it. Words are debatable. Answers are grey. Human beings are the best at avoiding blame by arguing themselves out of it.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:You never mention who bought or ordered the meat. You can still object to the meat even when slaughter thus lessening economical demand. Hence fail criteria. -
I think what you did is perfectly right as a Buddhist ie to chant silently in such a situation. This is the least we can do. I think others who don't agree hv their own reasons n logic n whatever, but I can only say that Justdoit n others like him are to be respected for their kind thoughts - this thought of true compassion for the weaker sentien beings, the sentient beings in distress. Non- Buddhists, I perfectly understood their reactions n we all can argue till the end of the world, no pointOriginally posted by justdoit77:Just want to share with you what I saw yesterday at this Sheng Shiong supermarket at bedok.
They have this live seafood department showing live fishes, prawns and crabs for sale. In order to attract customers and to show that their fishes is very fresh, they go and get a fish, still live one, chop off the tail and put it in front to show to the crowd.
The scene is super gross...the fish with its tail gone, struggling desperately for oxygen, with the blood slowly coming out of the vein.
I really pity the pain that the fish has to go through, furthermore considering the big size, the physical pain will be more.
Can't the seller give it a quick death instead of chopping it into halves and slowly let it suffocate? Do they think that the fish doesn't feel pain at all?
In fact, there are more tailless live fish in the store waiting for the potential buyer.
There was nothing I can do that time other than chanting mantra silently hoping these helpless beings can quickly die and liberate from the suffering.
I really can't believe such a barbaric act still happen in our society.
Let's hope we can one day become more capable to prevent this from happening again.
; but as for fellow Buddhists, we must know that this is the first step to cultivate Compassion n should be encouraged.
Yes, I also hope that the world will become more civilised one day. I realised that civilisation has advanced, but the human race has somewhat moves backwards; in fact many have become more primitive in thoughts n actions. Just look at some of the gruesome crimes commited tdy, the types of food we come out with, the way of processing, preparing, farming for certain food, staple or for coats n bags etc. We r actually behaving like cave-men, but with better clothing n better excuses for our actions that's all.
So Justdoit, pls continue to cultivate such Compassion. -
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
the thing is, if we don't eat Vegetables, since we are avoiding meat, we die, u know?. taking one's own life, is killing in itself too.
'Vegetables also living things what. You eat them you also kill them.'
--
tot this is quite similar problem.
Question: Some monks have told me that since insects are killed in the production of rice and other vegetables, then there is really no difference between eating those things and eating meat. What do you think about this?
“This would mean that you wouldn’t eat anything and let the people die. If you
say you were going to go for a week without killing insects through the food you eat, then you would die. If you die, this precious human life is being wasted. So if you just let your body be destroyed, that means you are taking your own life, which is killing in itself. You can always take the insect from the rice when you see it and let it free outside. You donÂ’t necessary have to kill beings to eat. Although, when we walk we crush many insects under our feet. We may not see them or observe them, but still we must be killing them. Not being aware doesnÂ’t mean that we have not created any sin. Because after all, cause and effect are always there.
http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Nonviolence_In_Tibetan_Culture_Ch2.pdf
/\ -
Other than the food chain, we also live in chain of society, family, career, politics and so on.Originally posted by gigabyte14:we are on top of the food chain
that is all i have to know
If you think that it is ok for the weaker to be eaten and tortured by the top in food chain, then likewise you should expect the same thing in other chain. -
yup, that's why there is also heaven for those kind ones to enjoy and hell to torture those did the bad for a very long time.Originally posted by Gasfene:There are kind people like you around because there are cruel people as well. Yin and Yang always co-exists. -
Like I said, not all circumstances.Originally posted by soul_rage:(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
Yes. Most of us don't slaughter personally. Pass.
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
He did not instruct others to slaughter. Its more based on market demand and supply. He did not personally instruct others to slaughter. Pass
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
It was not for his sake that the slaughter was committed, but is because of economic needs. Pass
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
Never witness. Pass
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter...
Never hear. Pass
So given the way humans can twist and turn, we can easily circumvent all the above.
By ordering seafood, you are in fact instructing others to slaughter and that the slaughter is committed for YOUR sake as an individual, unlike frozen meat, which is not directed to you as an individual and therefore you are not involved directly in the killing -- though indirectly you are as a consumer. -
No, it just means there is less karma. But it does not mean NO karma. The best is to develope compassion for all beings and stop eating meat, though not everyone is willing to do that.Originally posted by Croaking_Toad:I would like to pose a question to the above. Does that mean that if we were not to violate any of the five points above, we are able to consume meat in peace? Wouldn't that be deluding yourself that an animal still had to be slaughtered for our meal?
It is said in the Mahayana sutras that by eating meat, you are destroying the root of compassion. If there is any real compassion in you, how would you allow the animal to be killed for your eating, or support the killing?
Anyone with true compassion and practices the Bodhisattva path will seriously consider stop eating meat due to the arising of compassion. -
Hi, what I am trying to say is that whatever functions of awareness (dharma-nature/buddha-nature) arises -- unless there is a discriminative, conceptual, dualistic mind that identifies and attaches -- there cannot be suffering. Plants do not have mind consciousness and are incapable of mental perception -- for this you need highly sophisticated organisms with a complex nervous system and the mind consciousness of the sentient being.Originally posted by soul_rage:Dear Eternal,
Consciousness stems from human's understanding of the universe. Its a perspective taken from humans that consciousness is the one that separates awareness of pain and not.
Yet, is our understanding truly comprehensive? That plants really do not suffer, or is it more because we are looking for a replacement to meat (where we can see visually the animal's pain) to comfort our souls?
Humans are visual creatures. Just because a plant cannot move or cannot react to the cooking of it 'alive' doesn't mean that in its perspective it knows no pain.
that said, I agree with your views on Awareness, because I believe that awareness helps to improve a person's nature, or his character. There is a possibility to mentally detach your mind from the pain, so that you can hold a bowl of soup and reach the table even though it has scalded your hand, rather than dropping the bowl onto the floor.
Plants do not suffer and this is a fact. They are also not sentient beings in the 6 realms of samsara. We are not making up excuses to eat them.
Anyway, the actions of Awareness is spontaneous. It arises wisdom in reaction to circumstances and is not through dualistic thinking. Even if thought is involved, it is not dualistic thought.
update: first para corrected -
A customer wanted chicken and goes to the poultry seller A. Poultry seller A take a live chicken, kills it and sell to the customer.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:'For your sake' means it's intended for you as an individual.
Frozen meat is sold to masses but not directed specifically to you, SnowFlag, as an individual. It is not killed specifically for your purpose.
Therefore the karma is lighter. But doesn't mean no karma. See my previous post.
Another customer afraids of karma and goes to poultry seller B. Poultry seller B already killed the chicken and frozen the meat. Butcher B sells it to customer.
The 2nd customer believe by changing the way he buy the meat, his karma is lighter as it is killed not for his sake. But those chickens are killed for masses who wanted to buy them. When you buys it, how can you say it is not killed for your sake?
One more chicken is killed and you still eat a chicken. So what is the difference?
In olden times, the Buddha ate leftover food. So any bit of meat in the food is never intended to be killed for his sake. Buddha didn't crave for the meat. Compassion is one of his teachings.
Buying frozen meat doesn't means one less animal is killed. -
Compassion needs some intelligence. Ultimately the foolish will suffer the most when karma catches up.Originally posted by dangerboi:
I find it funny and not cruel though. I ate goose's legs in china few years ago. The goose were made to run in an enclosed area. They had to run around as they were on red hot burning charcoal. LOL. Having being cooked, their legs were chopped off. Can you imagine a live goose without legs?
-
--------------