Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:23 pm
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:32 am
Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am
A very thin line, more like a legal technicality, IMO.
Particularly because Buddhists are supposed to follow the 8-fold path, which includes developing harmlessness as part of Right Intention.
I've heard all the arguments, but I don't find them convincing.
Anyway, the lobster example is really about lay-Buddhists buying meat. Like apparently it's OK for somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood so a Buddhist can have some meat on their plate. Really?
You seem to be approaching this from a Western mindset, which is legalistic, consequentialist and informed by the Kantian maxim that whoever wills the end, wills the means.
I think Buddhist ethics are more about the consequences within the individual's mind. Buying or accepting meat killed by someone else is not disturbing. On retreat, I often see people tucking into meat, and then peacefully settling down to meditate. I don't think anyone could do that after wrestling a squealing animal into submission, and then slicing its carotid artery. It's just the way most humans are wired.
Ironically, part of my objection here is to a legalistic interpretation of the precepts, going by the letter but ignoring the spirit.
I think the
spirit of the precepts is to minimise the harm one does, both to self and others. That's why I keep refering to developing harmlessness as an aspect of Right Intention, a point some people are studiously avoiding in this discussion.
Because of this, I don't find your second argument all that convincing. Like we entitled Buddhists shouldn't be involved in the unpleasant realities of life, in case it effects our meditation? Hmmm.
Not at all. We are involved in the unpleasant realities of life whether we want to be or not, according to our kamma. The point is that there is no requirement upon us to act in such a way that we sort out the problems of other sentient beings. That's the Western mindset, a set of pervasive assumptions heavily influenced by Judeo-Christianity and those ethical systems which superseded religious sensibility. If we ask "What is the purpose of morality?", what would most Westerners say?
The Buddha (in this case via Sariputta) is clear that the Holy Life does not contain virtue as an end in itself, with an independent value:
"My friend, is the holy life lived under the Blessed One?"
"Yes, my friend."
"And is the holy life lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of virtue?"
"No, my friend."
So what is the place of virtue, which is undoubtedly important, in the Holy Life?
purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. And it's for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
How, in a cyclical universe of universal suffering (in its broadest sense) would the alleviation of one being's hardship, or the prolongation of one life by a few months or years, be at all significant? Thinking that it is so is the echo of the injunction that I am my brother's keeper. Kamma is purely subjective and psychological:
cetana. There is no tally in which our good actions are externally measured against some objective criterion of "goodness". That's the Western mindset. It's not as crude as saying that avoiding nasty situations allows us to meditate more deeply, although that's certainly part of it. In more general terms, it's that if our intentional actions are peaceful and wholesome, then our minds become progressively more peaceful and clear. Reckless unthinking killing - just like stealing, unbridled sexual expression, blurting out untrue and hurtful stuff, and intoxicating ourselves - are incompatible with what the Buddha called
adhicitta, or the heightened mind.