The difference is that you are not involved in the direct karma of killing. Killing and eating has different karmas.Originally posted by SnowFlag: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.
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.
Karma doesn't have to work in a way that you do A to B you'll get A back in the future.Originally posted by norm:that guy will be reincarnated into a fish in his next life and face the same treament.
Oic. Pretend that you don't it to be killed. Then later buy the meat will less karma. ThanksOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:The difference is that you are not involved in the direct karma of killing. Killing and eating has different karmas.
You mean buying frozen meat and fresh meat got difference in karma ?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The difference is that you are not involved in the direct karma of killing. Killing and eating has different karmas.
By buying frozen meat the karma is still different from directly killing them or demanding the animals killed, no orders were directed from you as an individual to the killing of a specific animal. Even so there is still some killing karma involved indirectly.
If you witness the killing or order the killing, there will be difference in karma.Originally posted by SnowFlag:You mean buying frozen meat and fresh meat got difference in karma ?
Agreed..Originally posted by longchen:Compassion needs some intelligence. Ultimately the foolish will suffer the most when karma catches up.
So don't witness or order the killing, and get the meat with less karma, right?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:If you witness the killing or order the killing, there will be difference in karma.
Of course if you don't eat at all that's the best...Originally posted by SnowFlag:So don't witness or order the killing, and get the meat with less karma, right?
When you eat, you are already telling them to keep up with the demand.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Of course if you don't eat at all that's the best...
If you eat, don't kill personally or give direct orders for them to kill any specific animals for you.
I agree with you. Nevertheless 'direct' and 'indirect' ordering will have different levels of karma. Not that one doesn't have karma and the other has.Originally posted by SnowFlag:To An Eternal Now,
When you buy the meat (whether frozen or not), you cannot say it is not killed for your sake. You are already part of the consumers that the meat are for.
The animals are killed for the consumers.
If the consumers want it to be frozen before they buy, the seller will keep it frozen.
If the consumers want to buy from supermarket, the sellers sell their product in supermarket.
This is not about condemning the man on what he eats.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:hur.. u guys go sort it out ba.
i adhere to this principle.
The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does
The debate here is the interpretion of one of the 5 rules that A External Now has mentioned.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:hur.. u guys go sort it out ba.
i adhere to this principle.
The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does
A person wanted to order meat. He argues that if he orders direct, he has more bad karma. So he play with the rules and order indirect.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I agree with you. Nevertheless 'direct' and 'indirect' ordering will have different levels of karma. Not that one doesn't have karma and the other has.
Nope. Cos Karma comes by intention. Karma is volitional and is a form of consciousness. Karma means intentional action -- without intention there is no karma. Buying the meat off the shelf doesnt come with the direct intention to kill the animal but nevertheless there is karma for supporting the killing indirectly. If you order seafood it happens that the sea creatures are still alive and by stating your intentions to eat them you are also giving an order for them to be killed. By witnessing the killing of the animal you ordered to be killed it also forms karmic imprints and by eating the meat you witnessed (being killed) it also forms karma because you are accepting that deed of killing by eating it.Originally posted by SnowFlag:A person wanted to order meat. He argues that if he orders direct, he has more bad karma. So he play with the rules and order indirect.
Isn't this a case of direct ordering? Just the method is changed to make it appear as indirect.
A person wanted to place order for a vegetarian meal, but didn't see/ask carefully and ordered a non-vegaterian meat instead.
Isn't this a case of indirect ordering?
By ordering the meat after the animal is killed, it makes it seems like indirect ordering. This is called playing with the rules.
Only by cutting down on meat, can the bad karma be less.
Not by playing with rules.
okie snowflagOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Nope. Cos Karma comes by intention. Karma is volitional and is a form of consciousness. Karma means intentional action -- without intention there is no karma. Buying the meat off the shelf doesnt come with the direct intention to kill the animal but nevertheless there is karma for supporting the killing indirectly. If you order seafood it happens that the sea creatures are still alive and by stating your intentions to eat them you are also giving an order for them to be killed. By witnessing the killing of the animal you ordered to be killed it also forms karmic imprints and by eating the meat you witnessed (being killed) it also forms karma because you are accepting that deed of killing by eating it.
But one with real compassion would not even buy meat as it supports killing. He has constant compassion for all sentient beings out there.
Of course if one can cut down on meat it will be the best.
hi ,soul ,Buddhism is not a dogma religion , you are still welcome to debate on those thing u not convincedOriginally 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?
You can live up to 300 over years and this thing that plants suddenly can remember pain and sadness wont hold true .so u still can eat plants
So what are human beings going to do? Starve and die?
If you read my 1st post, you will see that the point is I wanted to bring up is that when we buy the meat, the slaughter is committed for our sake liao.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake