Cittasanto wrote:Reading section 12 - also quoted previously - shows it was bought for, not killed for the Buddha. if the animals had been killed specifically for the group General Siha would not of be able to say "Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being".
To me, the entry talks more about Nigantha's behavior towards others, or their mistaken perception of the killing, than to show that there's no relationship at all in between the meat and the death of an animal. I think that this would have to be based on a mistaken perception, also.
Certainly the rules came about as a response, although it still does not say that the animal was killed specifically for anyone. However, there being a lack of Kammic responsibility and there being no relation are two different things. we are at the end of the day responsible for our own actions, not those of others, and as a result this lack of kammic responsibility is clearly shown in the passage.
Upajjhatthana Sutta AN5.57 wrote:
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
I agree that it's wrong to accuse someone who bought the meat of killing... but it's also wrong to say that this has no relationship at all to the killing of the animals (if there was)... which if you read your selection carefully, it said nothing about. (Quite rightly, I think.) To get the kind of interpretation that you did from the selection, I think there has to be some underlying motivation.
Do note I am not arguing there is no relationship at all, and have clearly said there is. but on the Kammic level the responsibility is not ours. or following the logic that a relationship = kammic responsibility means eating a vegetarian or vegan diet has a far share of death to account for (as tilt noted earlier).
I know that you mentioned somewhere before that you don't buy or eat meat? (Maybe I remembered wrong.) So maybe your motivation has something more to do with defending the person who taught you that interpretation, or maybe it's to do with the (well-intentioned) defending of the people who still eat meat... but it seems to me like there is some overreaching that is happening here (i.e., trying to deny that there's no relationship at all, in between one action and the other).
approximately correct, but my motivation is not up for debate.
and I have addressed the rest above.
We can not control what others do with the information they have, I used to go to my local pub every day for lunch and ordered the same thing at the same time every day except thursdays and sundays. One day I had a late lunch and the land lady had still prepared my food and drink for me, I couldn't control her decision even though I had said that I would not always be there at the same time everyday a number of times. We have to know what we can and can not control otherwise we are running around trying to control things we have no control over, and not doing what needs to be done, which happens to be sorting ourselves out.
How long will this woman continue to make you lunch if you stopped going to her pub? The kamma isn't just speech or thought (like for example, telling her not to make you lunch, or hoping that she will not make you one)... it's also action.
That was up to her, my responsibility was fulfilled to the best of my ability (do note the past tense).
I think that you maybe see the woman as a self-functioning entity, existing apart from the conditions around her... much in the same way that you viewed the Business, where you said that people have no control over it. That is a wrong view of kamma.
it is funny how you are twisting the example of being responsible of our own actions, not the actions of others!
do you personally tell the shop you use to order X,Y, & Z so you can buy it next time you go in? or do they predict they will need a certain amount and buy what they believe will sell and last until the next order?