porpoise wrote: Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.
it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason
OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
This is an another example of how in some Suttas all are instructed not to kill, but for the sake of some reasoning, but in the Vinaya the act of killing for food not prepared for the monks specifically, so as to not offend the feelings of hosts during the alms rounds, or when in the company of supporters during various events to which a monk is invited it is OK to eat meat. Inconsistent and just a little suspicious to say the least. One has to ask the question: " Did Buddha teach non-violence in all things, or did he not?" Did he mean what he said, when he stated that "..acts of violence lead only to more violence or did he not?"
Another example of Buddha's reported position regarding non-violence, one most memorable to me, is found in The Simile of The Saw
, where Buddha states that it is better to have one's limbs removed than to commit an act of violence in retribution.
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
Then we must ask ourselves would Buddha approve of what goes on in the slaughter houses of the world?,when he spoke ? source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Still another seeming confusion can be found in a Jataka Tales story for children, where Buddha, in a previous life as a hare or rabbit came upon a mother tiger and her cubs. The mother was apparently injured according to one version I have heard, and because of loss of vigor could not feed her cubs. Understanding the plight of the tiger family this rabbit, through compassion and loving-kindness, donated his body in the ultimate sacrifice to provide the starving family with a meal. Now, does this mean that Buddha is advising us to cut off an arm, cook it and feed the starving masses? No! What it means (to me) is that the general principle being taught by Buddha is to treat others (all others) with compassion and loving-kindness, no matter what it takes if we have the resources that would be helpful to others in need of our services, and to never "intentionally"cause harm to other living creatures where and when we have a choice. Monks eating what is offered by village families out of the kindness and compassion of their hearts to monks does not constitute an intentional harmful act on the parts of the monk. However, should a monk realize that the family is cooking extra meat "just for him", then it is his obligation to politely explain that he is not allowed to do so and why.
This is the message that I take from these stories and my understanding of The Vinaya rule.
By logical reasoning, Lay persons must think along the same lines to avoid the consequences of their kamma ( intentional actions) when they make food choices before purchasing, understanding that what they choose to buy supports the actions of the supplier. Illegal Drug buyers are part of the causal chain of events, which in turn leads drug suppliers to kill each other to compete for illegal drug user business. Just so, meat buyers are a part of the causal chain which leads to butchery of living beings, and just so, vegetarian buyers are part of the causal chain which leads to mass planting and harvesting in agriculture. Question is: Which route causes "less suffering" and "least harm"?