I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency.... Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?.. So as to avoid confusion.. My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...
-
1Maybe this question is already answered by Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong? and/or by Are all Buddhists vegetarian?– ChrisW ♦Feb 4, 2015 at 20:35
-
Yes partially... But actual question is much deeper.. Can we overcome sufferings by our actions alone?... Should not we be concerned about the consequences of our inactions too?– 0xdeadbeefFeb 4, 2015 at 21:04
-
if inaction is the main question, perhaps change the title so it better conveys your intention -- and so its better to search later for questions related to this?– user382Feb 5, 2015 at 0:54
-
Thank you for the suggestion i have made the question more direct– 0xdeadbeefFeb 5, 2015 at 7:07
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency
Yes but is the meat bought at the supermarket or he keeps animals to slaughter for food? If it's bought at a supermarket than I think it would be less bad karma than if he had it slaughtered.
Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?..
Yes I definitely think asking your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest is Not dhamma.I think it generates bad karma but only the level of intensity varies according to our intentions.I don't think we can kill another being even for food and get away with it.Though killing an animal for food is better than killing them for fun for sport.So the karma varies according to our intention. I don't know maybe it's just personal opinion but i just can't see that.My conscience won't allow me too.Which is why If I have to eat meat,which I do everyday, I say a little prayer and allow them to kill me for food in the future if a time like that should come.It's an act of compassion to give yourself to sustain others.Though i'm sure some of these animals we're not given a choice.so that's why I feel gratitude.For the food itself.So i do think it's wrong and i do accept all the consequences.We are the owner and heir to our karma.If we must kill an animal for food then we should do so in the most humane way and make use of all it's parts, for meat,hyde,fur for clothing etc.In some cultures that shows respect for the animal you've hunted.And I'm sure that's in line with the spirit dhamma.
My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...
Karma is intention.Action with intention.
What is your intention for killing an animal? and What is your intention for not doing anything to stop the animal being killed?
This will contribute to the fruits of our karma.
-
Buying meat from the supermarket isn't bad Karma. Also, not doing a certain type of good deed isn't necessarily a bad deed. Feb 5, 2015 at 6:30
-
Non-action is an action (e.g. allowing a child to continue hitting another child in front of myself would cause bad karma to me). Permitting an action to take place is the same as non-action.– AhmedFeb 5, 2015 at 6:41
-
1@SankhaKulathantille "Buying meat from the supermarket isn't bad Karma.""If you say so.I see buying meat from supermarket as contributing to the supply and demand of meat in the market for which i am guilty of."Also,not doing a certain type of good deed isn't necessarily a bad deed".Depends on what the certain type of good deed is,if somebody is hurt and you could save them but choose to do nothing or better yet, use that moment to practice satiphatana while you watch them continue to get hurt..??honestly...that just sounds like indifference.– OrionFeb 5, 2015 at 8:38
-
3@SankhaKulathantille On the subject of "indifference" FYI there's this: "The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. ... Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings."– ChrisW ♦Feb 5, 2015 at 14:28
-
1@ChrisW: If there's no 'I', there's no 'other'. Both are fabrications made of basic experiences. So the question of being indifferent to the well-being of others doesn't even arise. Feb 5, 2015 at 15:38
Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest
If Dalai Lama asks the cook to kill an animal, he violates the 1st precept and commits bad karma. If he asks the cook to just prepare meat without intending him to kill, he does not violate the 1st precept. He will get good Karma for arranging a meal for the guest.
answered Feb 5, 2015 at 5:22
-
Does the person who actually prepare meat create bad kamma by, for example, cutting the meat (prior/or) cooking the meat? That sounds like dealing with flesh.– B1100May 6, 2016 at 12:21
-
-
One who kills no doubt will create bad vipāka of killing but no bad kamma committed from cutting and cooking the meat, not at all? If there is unwholesome kamma from cutting and cooking meat, what would that be?– B1100May 7, 2016 at 0:47
-
It depends on the mindset of the person at the time. Otherwise, It's the same as cutting a vegetable. May 7, 2016 at 0:58
-
But we are not enlightened (yet), the mind is therefore filled with greed, hatred and delusion. Is it even possible to cook or cut meat with a mind free from greed, hatred and delusion?– B1100May 8, 2016 at 7:34
how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...
If the above "inaction" was not driven by volition associated, it is reasonable to admit it does not affect karma (ie. there wasn't, in fact, an action).
If volition led to, eg, not stopping an animal being killed, there was karma, since there was action. It just wasn't observable.
Presumably, the kind of karma is dependent on the volition, not on the fact that an animal wasn't saved. So I think it would be premature to simply conclude that inaction in these circumstances are bad.
cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi
Intention, I tell you, is kamma