He Buddha taught about karmic ‘conditioning’, which is a process by which a person’s nature is shaped by their moral actions.
Every action we take molds our characters for the future. Both positive and negative traits can become magnified over time as we fall into habits. All of these causes us to acquire karma.
If you are born a slave it is your Karma. If you have a good master, that is your Karma. If you have a bad master, that is your Karma. Karma is Karma. The contradictions of the Buddhist beliefs are not my issue, they are yours.
RE SEX
The minimum for a lay person is to avoid sexual misconduct. Know your scripture: Or simply reference a Wikki I don’t have time to find the original article again.
In the Buddha’s first discourse, he identifies craving (tanha) as the cause of suffering (dukkha). He then identifies three objects of craving: the craving for existence; the craving for non-existence and the craving for sense pleasures (kama). Kama is identified as one of five hindrances to the attainment of jhana according to the Buddha’s teaching. Throughout the Sutta Pitaka the Buddha often compares sexual pleasure to arrows or darts. So in the Kama Sutta (4.1) from the Sutta Nipata the Buddha explains that craving sexual pleasure is a cause of suffering.
If one, longing for sensual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he’s enraptured at heart. The mortal gets what he wants. But if for that person — longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish, he’s shattered, as if shot with an arrow.[1]
The Buddha then goes on to say:
So one, always mindful, should avoid sensual desires. Letting them go, he will cross over the flood like one who, having bailed out the boat, has reached the far shore.
The ‘flood’ refers to the deluge of human suffering. The ‘far shore’ is nirvana, a state in which there is no sensual desire.
The meaning of the Kama Sutta is that sensual desire, like any habitual sense pleasure, brings suffering. To lay people the Buddha advised that they should at least avoid sexual misconduct (See Theravada definition below). From the Buddha’s full-time disciples, the ordained monks and nuns, strict celibacy (called brahmacarya) had always been required.
Buddha specifically stated that speculating on the exact workings of kamma is an impossible task that will lead one to madness in the end.
The Buddha acknowledged other conditions that amount to one’s position in life. The Buddha never explicitly stated that being born a slave is kamma; that having a good master is kamma. The Buddha did not have a doctrine of the kind “do X and wind up with Y”.
The Buddha preached bright kamma with bright result; dark kamma with dark result; both bright and dark kamma with both bright and dark result; neither bright nor dark kamma with neither bright nor dark result.
In particular, the result of kamma preached by the Buddha was one of a rebirth in heaven, as a human, as an animal, and as hungry ghost, or as a hell being.
“Slavery” was understood by the Buddha to be a condition set up by the very caste system which he challenged.
“Having a good master” was not preached by the Buddha as a “kammic” result. Moreover, the Buddha accepted slaves and even serial killers into his community of monks.
The Buddha also agreed with the common notions of the day. Most people believed in deities, and he agreed. Most people believed in kamma, and he agreed. For the sake of teaching the people and for his own reasons.
Basically - you seem to be claiming that if a person was born with a mole on their right butt cheek the Buddha would expound a kammic set of conditions leading to this mole. That’s misleading and untrue.
In fact, the Buddha used many illustrations to explain that things come and go based on conditions. For example, he used the illustrations of plant life as a comparison.
A plant will only grow when the following conditions are met 1) a seed exists 2) it finds its place in the soil and 3) it is nourished with rain and sun light.
The Buddha did not teach that a “successful” seed was one which had been “good” in a past life.
Buddhist ontology is a kind of “flexible” determinism, with things only arising and passing when conditions are right. Kamma was not the only condition which he acknowledged.
I do know my scripture. And the definition, as I’ve said, of sexual immorality was not the act itself but rather who you hurt by doing so. Ie. a woman under the care of her parents was not to be consorted with.
Surely! And attaining jhana was no mere fancy. It required a lot of restraint. And cutting off sexuality for the monk was an absolute necessity - along with overall sense restraint, abandoning of the hinderances (as you mention), moderation in eating, and devotion to wakefulness.
I believe I’ve said just as much.
In light of that, no one is forced to become and remain a monk their whole lives. The ambition to become a monk is a personal choice. Those who make it are aware ahead of time that the path they wish to follow includes complete abstention from all sexual activity (masturbation included). This would be repressive if prescribed for everyone in the society, except that it isn’t. And the ordinance for lay followers is as I mentioned above - “no consorting with women under the care of their parents”
You just made my point! You need to keep digging ratty. Your Westernized whitewashed bullshit Buddhism has nothing at all to do with its origins, the actual teachings of the Buddha, the actual history of Buddhism, or how Buddhism was represented in the East prior to Westernizing itself. DIG DIG DIG Mr. Ratty. Take off those Buddhist Glasses and look at the shit you are shoveling. https://allthatsinteresting.com/buddhist-teachings
Do Buddhists Believe in Spirits? This is a good Question too… Everywhere around here the do. They do in China and in Thailand as well. Oh… Japan also. I have been to the Buddhist temples in each of the countries and actually spoken with monks and members. (Imagine that.) One of us actually lives in Asia. LOL And experiences Buddhist beliefs and culture first hand. LOL.
Come on, Cog. I’ve read the majority of the Pali Canon just like the author of that piece. I’m aware of every “dark” example in there, right up to the monks who committed suicide after being advised by the Buddha to recollect the disgusting nature of the body.
And, I’m not shoveling this shit at all. I’m sceptical of kamma, I’m sceptical of the afterlife, I’m sceptical of devas (when I’m in my right mind, that is).
I’m simply defending the Buddha’s teachings against the allegation that, for instance, a three legged mutant baby is entirely to blame for his deformities on account of the fact that he raped an octopus in his former life.
Ie. the Buddha would point to the Thalidomide in the water drank by the mother during her pregnancy before he accused the child of raping an octopus.
I think that’s a fair point to make.
I can appreciate that you live in Asia and witness 2500 years of Buddhism in the prevailing culture, but I live in the West and I’ve read the New Testament. This Western radical right wing Christian phenomenon of, for example, denying transgender people the right to cal themselves … whatever … isn’t necessarily in line with anything that Jesus taught. Ie. it’s a hardcore backlash of 2000 years of puritan bullshit towards a medically recognized condition. This right wing backlash towards fundamental human rights (however small the percentage is of humans out there who suffer from gender dysphoria) is not Jesus’ fault (well … everything is Jesus’ fault … that’s why he suffered in Hell for all of our sins ). Similarly, if a Korean monk tells the mother of a mentally ill child that he’s possessed by a spirit, this isn’t a direct outcome of anything the Buddha taught.
I’m up for a Chichen God as long as it has orange tail feathers. None of that traditional green shit. And it has to lay purple eggs that hatch into little rat babies. Let’s see now. We can fix it a perch right next to the Blue Universe Creating Bunnies, Whatever his name is … the Rainbow Farting Unicorn, Turtles all the way down, and the Big Yellow Creator Banana. A chicken will be a nice addition to our pantheon.
In what way? Ethics: Standards of right and wrong? How are you using the word. I showed that you kill just as many animals making your salad. Yes, you can choose organic salads from home farms and I can choose organic beef from small farms. Same shit. How is one more ‘ethical’ than the other? Honestly. It’s not. It’s just a mind game, (Life feeds on life.) Cows are more important than bunny rabbits, gophers, shrews, mice, birds, and anything else living in the fields. All hail Monsanto! Chemical runoff takes care of fish, plants and other living organisms. What we find dangerous to use in the USA we ship off to the third world countries. Look, if you eat, you kill. It’s just that simple. All we are arguing about is what you kill. Ethical seems to be a matter of opinion and not anything objectively verifiable. With the exception (I will give you this caveat) the ethical treatment of animals. We can choose what we kill and eat. We can learn how what we eat was produced. (That says nothing about being a vegetarian though.)
Did I address the right post? (Anyway, I thought I already did address this previously.) I disagree that it is more moral, more ethical, more anything, not to eat meat. You don’t get points in any of those areas for being a vegetarian. Now, with that said… If you would like me to stand next to you and protest the cruel treatment of animals, I can do that and still eat meat. I think this is an ethical position. I also understand that it must be balanced with feeding the world. People could help out by eating less red meat. I don’t regard that as ethical or more moral, just a nice thing to do. LOL Are we at an impass?
In that it is more immoral/wrong to kill and eat animal, when you have an alternative, than if you choose to not kill and eat that animal.
I don’t eat salad, that’s boring, I prefer curry.
But no, I dont agree, not every carrot I eat for example, equates to one animal’s life lost, whereas every meat product means at least one animal has died.
This brings me back to the point of practicality, I aim to reduce animal suffering to the highest degree practicable, it is not practical for me, financially, to consume products that have zero impact on wildlife.
If it were, I would attempt to follow that practice, rather than consuming mainstream produce.
Because of my attempts to ensure less animals die/suffer because of my actions, I am demonstrably practicing better ethics, than someone who disregards/fails to consider, their own impact.
I never made the claim that I am entirely free of causing animals to suffer, that would be an untenable position to hold.
I do happily make the claim, that I cause less than the average person though, as I can confidently support this claim.
No, I don’t agree, that would be a false equivalence fallacy, Eating salad is not equivalent to eating beef, as less animals are harmed due to the creation of salad, than they are for a beef burger.
No, it isn’t and it isn’t fair to ensue manipulation/mind games where there isn’t any intended, certainly not on my part. (maybe you don’t mean this, I don’t intend to strawman you here, yet I fail to discern another meaning.)
That it does, I simply choose to feed on life that isn’t terrified of being consumed, or has the organs required for emotions. (plant life)
This is subjective, I would have to disagree, but it also isn’t relevant.
Cows produce dairy, they have a functionality, most of the other animals you listed are considered pests by Humans, but I wouldn’t say their lives have less value.
What qualities are you attributing to the value of a species? whether they benefit us? the length of their lifespan? their capacity for thought?
There isn’t any real discernible line, and it boils down to subjective human perspective.
Such companies I personally view as deeply unethical, and if I become aware a product I am buying is supporting such companies, I cease purchasing it. (If it is practical.)
This is why I attempt to lessen the impact my waste has on an individual level, to the most practicable standard I can. Beyond that, I can’t really do much.
Again with the goalposts.
The goal isn’t to avoid killing at all, that is not within the umbrella of practicality.
Nope, we are debating about the amount of killing also, I attempt to lessen this amount.
I disagree, it is demonstrable that due to not eating meat, I am contributing to less suffering and death of non-human animals, than someone who is choosing to eat meat.
So you do concede it is a choice to eat meat, and not eating meat is the default?
It has everything to do with being a vegetarian, as I am demonstrably lessening my impact to the highest degrees practicable for me.
You did, but not in it’s entirety, I made several points that went unaddressed, specifically about alternative sources for the nutrients you said were only available in meat products.
But I believe I have demonstrated this to be the case, due to the amount of suffering caused, again, the goalpost isn’t to entirely reduce the amount, but to lessen it.
If you are causing less of an impact, you objectively have the moral/ethical high ground.
Causing zero impact isn’t really possible, and to set the goal posts at that would be unfair.
Yes I do! I get as many points as worthy of awarding, for reducing my impact.
Person A chooses to eat meat, They have caused X amount of suffering.
Person B eats only non meat products, They have caused Y amount of suffering.
X > Y = Less suffering caused by Person B.
Less suffering caused = better morality/ethics.
Of course you can, I wouldn’t argue that at all.
Which is exactly the point I was making, I simply say my position is more ethical, and I can/have demonstrated it to be so.
This is a contradiction, a nice thing to do, would be more ethical/moral than for example doing something nasty.
I mean, I still stand by my position, and I personally feel that your position is untenable, but I can understand the need for everyone to get along, and I certainly am not going to attempt to force the issue.
I can also understand an unwillingness to make sacrifices that you aren’t willing to make, to reduce animal suffering.
I’m not one for coercion, you can eat whatever you damn well like, I just would rather admit you don’t care, instead of attempting to justify what can’t really be justified.
Like @Whitefire13 said earlier “I don’t give a shit.” That is an acceptable response for me, and I won’t judge you for it either.
I will always maintain that the meat industry is humanities biggest ethical blind spot, but I won’t harp on about it, unless the topic is raised or asked to me directly.
LOL… I murder less than you, so I am more moral, You murder cows, and I murder bunnies, so I am more moral. LOL Do you hear yourself? LOL No false equivalence here. You live on the planet. Animals die so you can eat. They die so you can live.
Nope, we are not debating about the amount of killing. We are talking about killing and living. Measuring how much is literally an impossible task. People kill to eat. That is a fact.
[quote=“Wily_cat, post:72, topic:4225”]
I am demonstrably lessening my impact to the highest degrees practicable for me.
[/quote] And you don’t get bonus points for that. You still kill, and you still survive on the death of furry little animals. Sorry to burst your bubble. You don’t win any awards.
Firstly, I never once said I am ‘more moral’ in general, but when it comes to this instance, my position is certainly ‘more moral.’
Secondly, I don’t murder cows or murder bunnies, and I never said anyone ‘murders’ at all, The definition of murder as I see it is, ‘the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another human.’
In my eyes killing to eat can be justified under vegetarianism or veganism, depending on what is practicable for that person in that given situation.
Murder and killing are completely different subjects in this context, this is the third time you have shifted the goalposts, and you have failed to address each time I have highlighted it.
I also want to address the LOL which you have repeatedly posted in your comment, why are you laughing, when it isn’t justified.
This implies to me, that you are laughing at me, which in my eyes is a form of manipulation, as you aren’t addressing my arguments, I hastily conclude you are getting increasingly invested on this topic, and acting in such a manner out of frustration?
I don’t hold this against you, as losing a debate is something that doesn’t happen often to atheists here, after all, theists aren’t going to succeed in a debate. It is uncomfortable to have to defend an untenable position.
But there clearly was, as I highlighted it.
This is a false equivalence, and I addressed why, but you entirely ignored and failed to address my explanation as to why it is a false equivalence fallacy.
It is demonstrable that the crops grown for a ‘salad’ would not cause the same amount of suffering for a non-human animal, as it would for making a beef burger.
What goes into a salad?
cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes, onions, carrots, celery, radishes, mushrooms, avocado, olives, artichoke hearts, heart of palm, watercress, parsley, garden beets, and green beans
The land used to grow a whole harvest of these, what would you say that is, lets just say 30 hectares of land.
How many animals are killed in whilst harvesting/planting/maintaining these 30 hectares? this would be country dependant of course.
Let’s see if I can work out a rough estimate?
The best global estimate for how many wild animals die annually in crop monocultures is about 7.3 billion.
Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares, or 38 percent of the global land surface. About one-third of this is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures) for grazing livestock.
38% of 5b is 1.9b, so that’s 1.9 billion hectares of land used globally, but that isn’t just for crops for human consumption, as you have to take into account the land used for growing crops for the meat industry, which accounts for 3/4 of that 1.9 billion, which equals 1.425b; that leaves us with 475m hectares of land.
That’s only 475m hectares of land that can be attributed to the killing of non-human animals, but the question remains, how many animals are killed on these 475m hectares? I could potentially quantify this, but it isn’t really relevant, as I have already demonstrated, more land is used by the meat industry.
The meat industry, I might add, which is responsible annually for 83b deaths (not including those killed due to harvesting crops.)
I also reiterate my position, isn’t ‘I don’t kill non-human animals.’ I have already acknowledged that killing non-human animals is unavoidable, if I am to eat and survive on this planet, with the funds I have.
So, that being said, have I adequately addressed why your statement is a false equivalence?
The amount of deaths of non-human animals is higher, for a beef burger, than it is for a salad.
[quote=“Cognostic, post:73, topic:4225”]
I never said anything about ‘bonus points.’
I get ‘points’ towards being more ethical in my approach to dietary practises, I’m not even sure how anyone could achieve bonus points in this context?
No, I don’t.
Someone else kills, mostly unintentionally and as a by product, for me so I can consume plant based alternatives to meat.
I have killed in the past, before I was a vegetarian, I’ve shot 5 pheasants and put 1 out of its misery due to a mishap with a friends dog, trapped 3 rabbits and 2 squirrels and I also have killed a family of ground nesting birds by treading on them accidentally, Oh I also squished a toad when I was a child, with a large rock.
I also failed to notice a friend was suicidal, and missed an opportunity to perhaps have intervened, if I hadn’t been so absorbed with a girl at the time.
Other than that, I have not killed directly, but inadvertently.
You are being dishonest, by continuing to strawman me, when I have already addressed this.
I do not hold the position that I am not responsible for the deaths of any animals.
I don’t know how to make that any clearer.
Honestly, after the way you’ve conducted yourself on this topic, you’ve lost a lot of respect from me, I thought to expect a level of intellectual honesty from you, after seeing your approach to other topics.
But, I guess not.
You have still failed to address the issue of nutrients which I demonstrated are widely available in plant based products. (refer to post 26)
I urge you to read through our discourse thus far, look at your own posts, critically, as you would a theist arguing for a god.
The true challenge of honesty, is to admit when you are wrong and alter your position accordingly.
Whatever, honestly I couldn’t give two shits, If you had simply said, ‘I eat meat, and I don’t care to stop’ or something along those lines, I would have been fine with it, as I stated before your latest reply.
But instead, you chose to carry on dishonestly ignoring the points/counter arguments/evidence I have posted, throwing fallacy after fallacy instead of just admitting that your position is untenable.
Shame on you, you poo covered ape! climb out of that muck on the floor, wash yourself off, and please start swinging on the monkey bars in a manner according to your much earned social status on these forums. If you don’t I’ll steal all your bananas, I am a cat, I am far sneakier than you.
I only kill small animals so I am more moral. Your boat does not float. Sorry.
OOPS! Foot in mouth fallacy. Ha ha ha ha ha … (Sorry.) You actually said those two things in the same sentence.
I think the LOL is completely justified. I have stated that I have no problem with vegetarianism. So, I am not laughing at you. The justifications, on the other hand, are silly. Biological justifications do not hold up. We are omnivores and need the nutrients animal flesh provides. We are biologically designed to eat meat as much as we are to eat plants. Have you seen the article Bambi ate Thumper? Even herbivores are opportunistic meat eaters. Deer have been known to eat fish. Cows eat birds. There are antelope that eat carrion, and hippos are opportunistic meat eaters among others. Life feeds on life. It’s true even in the kingdom of the herbivores.
My point: there are no morality points, ethics points, or value points of any kind for being a vegetarian. NONE. We must eat. Vegetarianism does not get an award.
As I have previously stated, I am happy to stand with you if you want to protest cruel treatment of animals. I also agree that red meat consumption could be reduced, (That’s just good for the planet). There are issues around meat consumption. Morality and Ethics are not among them (strictly speaking of consumption).
NO. You don’t. (Not for consumption.) (Not for simply choosing to be a vegetarian.) Put it this way… You don’t get to pat yourself on the back and pretend you are special. All you have done is make a food choice. If everyone in the world made the same choice, there would be a lot more dead bunny rabbits, raccoons, moles, gophers, frogs, fish, etc. to worry about.
Perhaps one day we will grow proline in the lab at a price and with a taste consumers can afford and enjoy. With a viable alternative in place, ‘a real alternative,’ this would be a much more interesting conversation.
). Similarly, if a Korean monk tells the mother of a mentally ill child that he’s possessed by a spirit, this isn’t a direct outcome of anything the Buddha taught.
