[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Andrew Skilton]

Thu, 20 Oct 2005  "Tom Troughton" wrote:

>>My point, clearly not clearly expressed, was that when I feed my dogs they
>>probably do not analyse what is in their bowl and are therefore capable of
>>neither knowing nor understanding its provenance (and thereby precluding the
>>possibility of their making an ethical choice). Whereas I am, and therefore
the
>>'bad karma' is mine.
>>Andrew

>Does this not remove all ethical characteristic from the action? I am
under the impression that Buddhist theory does distinguish betweeen 1)
actions that are to abandoned or adopted according to vow, and 2)
actions that 'unmentionable', which seems to amount to a conception
that some actions carry some moral power due to their nature. The power
may be attenuated and so forth, but it remains. Perhaps Theravadin
traditions draw this distinction differently - could someone throw some
light on this?

Tom, I'm sorry but I do not follow your argument here and do not recognise this
aspect of Buddhist theory on the matter. So I cannot usefully respond to this
bit of your message at the moment. All I can say is that there is at least one
ethically significant action involved if my dogs are fed flesh, and that is in
my choice to purchase this product. 

>You do not seem to wish to maintain this distinction, by making
morality only apply to knowing and understanding, i.e. human. It
appears to me that you are standing dangerously close to a slippery
slope. You could move away from that slope simply by assenting that
dogs do accumulate negative karma, attenuated through circumstance no
doubt, but still a stain imprinted on the mind.

I assume dogs do accumulate negative karma (i.e. perform unwholesome deeds) and
therefore 'generate' further unpleasant experiences for themselves. As I put in
a previous mail on this matter, the animal realm is considered a durgati largely
because it predisposes its members to further unwholesome actions. The context
for my remark above was a query from Jim about the apparent contradiction of
vegetarians keeping, and therefore feeding, carnivore pets. I was not attempting
to make a universal statement above the moral status of animal behaviour.

Also, as I wrote a while back, I certainly do not wish to claim characteristics
such as knowledge or understanding as exclusively human, but rather wanted to
point out that there are a range of allegedly 'human' virtues and traits that
literary Buddhist literature (perhaps as distinct from Buddhist technical
literature?) regularly attribute to animals. My own limited experience confirms
this possibility, and for me plays a part in my reasons for adopting
vegetarianism.

>This raises a question. In general do you think that the Buddhist
theory of karma, an explanation of our lack of control over our
experience and fate, is taught so we may assert control? Might it be
taught for some other reason(s)?

I thought that Buddhist teaching in this area was attempting to draw our
attention to the consequences of unwholesome (akusala) action (karma) so that if
we wish, we can free our selves from its consequences.  Is that a 'yes'?  In the
academic forum Buddhist karma theory is taught for remuneration. But I perhaps
wrongly have a suspicion that you meant something else here...?

Andrew



***********************************
Andrew Skilton 

***********************************