[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Mike Austin]

In message <1130002461.7608.14.camel at localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. 
Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> writes

>The
>reference to Madhyamika thought was a reminder that even at the
>conventional level, everything is interconnected and that one ignores
>that at one's peril.

OK - but as I referred to that myself earlier, I do not need reminding. 
It has been part of my argument all along.


>> Richard, I am well aware of the above distinctions. You have hit several
>> targets correctly - but not the one I set up for you to hit. That is the
>> one where A has no intention and B acts nevertheless.
>
>I have not addressed it, because it is not relevant to our discussion.
>What you are evidently trying to say is that the abattoir workers and
>the butcher do their work without your bidding, and therefore you have
>no responsibility for their actions.

First,  I put the case that there was no wrong doing in merely eating or 
buying meat. That was from a very narrow and personal perspective.  Then 
I suggested that, due to interdependence,  we play a part in every wrong 
in samsara. That was from a very wide and general perspective. So what I 
am trying to suggest here is that, somewhere between these perspectives, 
one draws an arbitrary line for oneself beyond which one may consider an 
action of someone else to be beyond one's own responsibility.

It would appear that, more or less unanimously on this list, people view 
that any killing that follows after someone buys meat,  is caused by the 
buyer of that meat and is their responsibility. I would presume then (so 
we can move away from meat eating) that this applies to any purchase for 
which there had to be a prior killing - for example, leather goods. When 
I was in a taxi a couple of days ago, I sat on leather seats. I am aware 
that an animal had to die (or, most probably, be killed) so that I could 
sit on a leather seat.  So, through the supply chain of taxi-driver, car 
manufacturer, tanner and slaughterer, I am now causing the death of some 
cow in the future because I took a ride in a taxi with leather seats. It 
may be an increasio ad absurdum, but that is where the argument leads.

Another,  more relevant, example (for Tibetan Buddhists) is the offering 
of silk scarves. I was informed a few months ago, that thousands of silk 
moths have to die to produce one silk scarf.  Now, my collection of silk 
offering scarves (that I bought)  represent my causing the death of many 
silk moths in the future.  Then, should someone see me offering scarves, 
they may think,  "This person uses silk scarves. I will now produce silk 
scarves and kill moths to supply this person."

So, I find it rather difficult to see where to draw the line here.  That 
explains my initial, rather insular,  consideration of only my immediate 
actions of body, speech and mind - without so much regard to what others 
make of it.  But I would like to point out that my views are by no means 
fixed on this. This whole discussion has provided me with plenty of food 
for thought and I am reviewing my position carefully.  I am glad that we 
are now getting into the nitty gritty of the matter.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin