so the supply points had no influence before todays world & customer wants were not attempted to be met before?LonesomeYogurt wrote:What I mean to say is that the complex economy of today's world, in which consumer demand at supply points influences greater production on a mass scale through factories and industrialized farming, responds to our actions far differently than the economy of the Buddha's time.Cittasanto wrote:out of interest when would be buying and selling anything not be demand driven, or was there a time when supply was not tried to meet the demand, and great losses were the norm in revenue due to underselling or understocked?
or did this production form to meet the demand found at supply points?
what I am stating is the guidelines for mendicants are just that, for mendicants, lay peoples behaviour within the vinaya is not addressed directly, not to mention this rule only deals with a false accusation of slaughtering animals for the specific intent of offering, and not the eating of meat by lay people or their shopping habits for themselves, so only deals with wrong livelihood for laypeople but that isn't specifically mentioned in the text as it is not concerned with what lay people do, and still doesn't ban eating meat at other times for a mendicant.Are you implying that somehow these are not good guidelines for making responsible, compassionate choices? It seems to me that they provide a wonderful framework for monks and laypeople as well.except those prohibitions are not for lay people, and designed for alms mendicants (due to a criticism of accepting food offered by a former nigantha supporting general sila (?name)) not those who could decide what to have when they wanted, i.e., lay people.
so not very effective as an argument against lay people eating meat.