[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Mike Austin]

In message <s3578885.036 at zgrw01.cf.ac.uk>, Andrew Skilton 
<skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk> writes
>Thu, 20 Oct 2005  Mike Austin wrote:
>
>>However,  I still read the meat-eating as something that may degrade the
>>individual - not something of karmic (blameable) nature. For example, it
>>seems that it may be put on a par with uncleanliness,  laziness, lack of
>>self-discipline and so on.
>
>Mike, I am fascinated by the distinctions you are making here and would like to
>see how you would elaborate the difference between degradation of the 
>individual
>and actions of a karmic nature.

Good.  All I am seeking to do is to try and 'unpack' what goes on here - 
what interwoven causes and results are at play and how an individual can 
decide for him/herself where their responsibilities are.


>I take your list of 'individual degradations' to be actions that only (or
>primarily) affect the person who performs them. If so I would agree that these
>are probably of a different moral significance (tho still of a 'karmic nature')
>to actions that primarily affect others

Yes, that's good. I am beginning to think that there could be something 
about eating meat that affects the individual in a more subtle sense.


>- but the case of eating meat is one
>which has drastic effects on others (the slaughtered animals) and therefore
>cannot be classed as merely an 'individual degradation'.

This is where I disagree, but nobody challenges me directly on the point 
that I am making. People seem to be lumping together several actions and 
events. Eating meat is just that. Killing is just that.  Even if one has 
killed to eat meat, the non-virtue is in the act of killing - not in the 
act of eating. Furthermore, buying meat is just that.  If someone should 
kill afterwards because one eats meat, that would be a non-virtue. Then, 
if one asks them to do this, one is also acting non-virtuously.

Forget meat-eating for the moment. People seem to ignore the points I am 
making because this is an emotive issue. Consider the general case where 
one person acts on another's behalf, without being ordered, requested or 
hinted to do so, and with no intention in the mind of the benefactor. Is 
the benefactor of that act responsible for it?


>If I disdain to wash such that I stink out the dharma hall and distract my
>fellow practitioners  from the golden words of the guru, you could argue that
>there is only minor blame to me if I do not understand the effects of my aroma.
>But if I understand that my smell is having that effect, then surely the
>significance of my not washing in that situation is different?

The action - your action - causes discomfort directly. I would say, yes, 
it is your cause and your responsibility. This would be a 'complete act' 
in the karmic sense if there was an intention to do it and 'delight' in 
seeing it through. (This is what I have heard. I have yet to understand 
the status of 'complete' and 'incomplete' actions.)

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin