Dhammanando wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:18 pm
seeker242 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:24 pmAnd extending that to also include "not cause any unnecessary harm" whether or not that harm is direct or indirect, is certainly not something that the Buddha would disapprove of, certainly not improper or wrong in a Buddhist context.
By eating meat one would not be causing harm in any sense of "cause" that is deemed morally relevant in the Buddha's teaching.
What is "morally relevant in the Buddha's teaching" is not the determining factor, when one is taking the animal's perspective. It is relevant when one is taking one's own perspective but that is not what vegetarianism is about. It's all about the animal's perspective.
You may well be right that a person who is persuaded to embrace vegetarianism by extra-dhammic (e.g., consequentialist or Mahayanist) arguments would not incur the Buddha's disapproval. But his undertaking would be an entirely supererogatory one. Being supererogatory, if he were to go peddling it as a requirement of Buddhist sīla then he would be misrepresenting the Buddha. It seems likely that this would incur exactly the sort of disapproval that fell upon Devadatta.
Yes exactly, which is why I have initially said what the Buddha taught or didn't teach, has nothing to do with the topic to begin with. It's not about kamma or one's practice, etc, etc.
All I'm claiming is that the advocated extension is not an obligatory one and should not be proposed as such.
Ok, no problem. However, the vegetarian argues that it should be obligatory, because that's what the animals in question would argue, if they could speak.