Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:01 pm
thepea wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:15 pm
In the case of the Buddha accepting meat from a donor, he is not "enabling" them to kill the animal. They were able to do that whether the Buddha accepted it or not. So if support is enabling, he is not in this instance supporting killing.
Again, this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We are talking about the Buddha supporting killing by accepting meat as dana. He is not a layman, and he is emphatically not purchasing it. He does not support this business to continue.
Try to remember what the issue is here. Your claim is that the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat. Not what I think is wrong.
No Sam,
My claim is that the first precept is not about killing but rather destruction which has the characteristics of
Greed: with regards to extincting a species which could be not respecting the breeding cycles of animals, taking pregnant females.
Cruelty: torturing animals through improper living conditions, lack of proper food/water, etc...
Mutilation: experimenting and testing drugs or cosmetics on animals, etc....
This is my claim regarding first precept.
It certainly was your claim, up until about an hour ago. This is how you made that claim:
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
Earlier in the thread, you said:
The Buddha ate fish, did he not?
That’s approval.
And you made several subsequent posts defending that claim. Do you still want to do that, or are you abandoning that now? Were you wrong to say that the Buddha approved of or supported killing?
So I’m asking you, what is the issue with me killing one of my chickens, plucking it’s feathers, gutting it, and roasting it for supper, then offering the leftovers to some monks for their alms?
As far as this thread is concerned, my issue with it has been whether the Buddha ever spoke in praise of the first bit - the killing of the chicken. He didn't. He taught lay supporters to refrain from killing living beings, it seems.
What will happen to me for doing this deed?
How would I know?!
That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Buddha supported or approved of it.
Yes, eating the alms is supporting the harvesting of the alms and the need for the alms.
The layman know there is a group of monastics coming for alms I’m sure they made certain to have enough to go around.
Like I mentioned previously in the Sri lanken temple I frequented, a family was chosen each week to prepare and deliver the good for the monks. This was a meal prepared specifically for them. It always included fish, chicken or beef, or pork with rice and vegetables,
This was prepared specifically for the monks living there.
The monks ate the foods and when I questioned them about the animal flesh they said “this is traditional Sri lanken diet, we always eat these foods.”
So there seems little concern from the monks where there traditional meal comes from and the killing involved specifically for this meal.
People traditionally eat animals even in warm climates where fruits and vegetables are abundant.
This involves killing of said animals, if this was frowned upon the monks should speak out to this, don’t you think? Their silence is quiet support of traditional ways and this seems the same for buddhas time, with the difference being the monks walked in for alms vs the layman bringing to him directly.
I don’t consider intentional killing to be a breach of precept if done for non destructive purpose.
To single out killing in general is what I’m arguing as an extreme and incorrect.