A cruel scene in singapore
-
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.
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. -
that guy will be reincarnated into a fish in his next life and face the same treament.
-
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.
It could come in another form of suffering. -
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.
Customer: I only eat, didn't kill. Moreover if the butcher didn't kill, I wouldn't buy.
Butcher: If the customer don't want, I wouldn't kill it.
Customer: If I buy frozen meat, I will have less karma wor.
Butcher: Ok, give you frozen meat lor. -
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. -
Customer: If I buy from butcher, it means it is killed for my sake. So it is better to buy from supermarket where it is already killed and frozen.
Customer: If you follow the 5 rules, you will have less karma. So buy frozen meat and don't buy direct from butcher, or else karma is more.
Never know that by changing the way things are done, karma is lesser. Wierd -
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.
btw check your pm
-
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?
If you eat, don't kill personally or give direct orders for them to kill any specific animals for you. -
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.
Customer: I do eat them. But I never give direct orders to kill them. I get frozen meat and don't buy direct.
Seller: In order to meet the demands of the market, we need to increase the supply.
Frozen meat stayed in the fridge. No customer ordered the killing, but the customer buys them. If it is not killed for your sake, why do you buy from them?
The seller changes the way they sell things because people wanted it that way. Still the chickens are killed, except the people feel that the karma is less by changing the way things are done. -
Butcher: Nowadays, it is the machine that kills them. I didn't kill them on my own, so my karma is lesser.
Customer: I buy frozen meat. I didn't witness or order the killing. So the karma is lesser.
Chicken: Both butchers and customers said it is not their entire fault. Am I the one at fault? -
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. -
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 -
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
It is about the suffering of the animals that you kill. -
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
When 2 persons exhange opinions, it doesn't means one person look down on other.
I believe healthly discussion is good. If it leads to flame war or name calling, then no point discussing.
-
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.
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. -
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.
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. -
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.
I am much impressed you hold a debatable point on the issue of killing
Let me explain to you taken from the 5 Precepts .
AEN , look at this answer
According to the 5 precepts study on killings
to satisfy breaking the precepts ,the conditions must be made
1.intention to kill
2.life lost
3.human [heaviest karma ] must be a live animal[lighter]
4.weapon is used
the 5 precepts study on killing stated clearly ,ordering of already died animal not seeing it , hearing it or it die by the clear reason due to self (human ) inflicted is considered as not insurmountable to breaking the precepts of killings
so ,snowflag , I respect you for bringing this point ,so it brings me to talk abt the study of the Precepts of Killing .
Hmm , maybe can be a skype topic ? anyone game ?
My answer is that whether u order the meat or non-meat ,the volition of karma is there still .but .......
life is full of buts
it is lesser than u actually hear it killed ,see it killed and it dies as a result of you
Buddha goes straight to the point of intention , not the issue of whether order or not
Order or not is a mundane concept , intention is a mind concept .
with Sincerity,
Bohiruci -
--------------------------
-
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?
end of day , i dun force ppl to convinced ,but made ppl convinced
First , Buddha already said in 2500 years ago in many Mahayana sutra (500 and more ) that Plants does not have the mind ,memory ,experience and consciousness function of a human.
It 2500 years ago , and science still unable to find where is the heart of the plant [cellulose wall is heart ?]
and the point i have been saying is Intention and not Demand and Supply
Economics of Science Aspect cannot compare to human intention
Let me ask you .
If you increased the demand for meat ,May I ask how much u want order to increase this demand
I used to vote for a song to go up to the chinese billboard chart last time.
I realise that no matter how much effort I put in by asking neighbours to vote[one vote per person ] the song never reaches the top,Now soul_rage , can you tell me the reason why ?
you have also raised good question on certain issue ,however , logic must be incontestable before can be present as fact .
Else do it hold true for the Sun to set in the East ?
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?
what i mentioned is the by-product killings of harvesting plants -pesticide
and chemical fertillisers -
Demand and Supply governed by Human ,thats what i learnt in Economics
but What drives human ?can anyone please answer that ?
answering that by this underlyiing theme , u will understand the gist of the whole thing on killings and vegetarianism -
Regarding the difference of karma for the butcher, eater and witnesser, my opinion is:
1) Do it yourself or not
If one kill the animal himself, the impression to his mind and 8th conscious will be deeper. Over time, he will become more violent and develop the habit of killing easily.
If you ask the meat eater go and slaughter the animal himself, he rather pay extra to buy from supermarket because he feel terrible and sad to see the animal suffer. At least he still has a little bit compassion. Due to this difference in mind and attitude, the bad karma that they get will also be different.
2) Buy a packaged one or live one
If let's say the customer buy a live chicken to be killed. For sure, the chicken is going to suffer and die because of this. But if he buy from supermarket instead, the supermarket may have extra stock that even if the demand increase by let's say 1%, the number of chicken to be slaughtered at the butcher will remains the same. Anyway, the unsold chicken once reach expiry date, will be disposed.
3) Witness or not witness
Likewise, if you witness a animal to be killed because of your ordering, then you are the one who directly contribute to its death and suffering. If you witness it and feel happy seeing the fish to be slaughtered, you will have equal bad karma or even more than the butcher who kill it.
Worse is, after a few times witnessing without any regret, you become used to it and become the next butcher
So, it is all in the mind. You can claim that even though you choose which fleshy chicken to be killed, witness the killing or even do it yourself but in your heart you feel sad for the chicken. But even if the whole world including you cheated by yourself, you will still suffer the same bad karma. -
With more people getting into this thread, I would like to point out that the whole issue of this discussion is that a guy quote the following, saying that by doing so, the meat is clean and so bad karma for the act is lesser
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
Why this is so? The slaughter is committed for the consumers. You form part of the consumers when buy or eat it.
Let me compare the olden and modern times.
In Buddha's times, the 5 rules was preached to the monks, who may encountered these situations when they get their alms. The monks don't want to eat the meat in the 1st place.
In modern times, people use the 5 rules to justify themselves to eat the so call clean meat. But the meat intake doesn't reduced.