4

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...

Crab Bucket
  • 21,051
  • 11
  • 62
  • 173
0xdeadbeef
  • 63
  • 6

3 Answers3

1

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.

Sankha Kulathantille
  • 25,668
  • 1
  • 22
  • 64
  • 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. – B1100 May 06 '16 at 12:21
  • No. Only the one who kills or orders to kill – Sankha Kulathantille May 06 '16 at 12:28
  • 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? – B1100 May 07 '16 at 00:47
  • It depends on the mindset of the person at the time. Otherwise, It's the same as cutting a vegetable. – Sankha Kulathantille May 07 '16 at 00:58
  • 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? – B1100 May 08 '16 at 07:34
  • Is it possible to play a guitar with a mind free from greed, hatred and delusion? :) – Sankha Kulathantille May 08 '16 at 09:49
  • But you said: It depends on the mindset of the person at the time. Otherwise, it's not the same as cutting a vegetable, right? – B1100 May 18 '16 at 12:41
  • If the mindset is the same, cutting a vegetable has similar Karmic consequences to cutting meat – Sankha Kulathantille May 19 '16 at 04:09
1

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.

Orion
  • 3,122
  • 2
  • 14
  • 31
  • Buying meat from the supermarket isn't bad Karma. Also, not doing a certain type of good deed isn't necessarily a bad deed. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 06:30
  • 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. – Ahmed Feb 05 '15 at 06:41
  • Wrong! There are plenty of ways to not interfere without committing bad Karma. ex: Doing Satipattana: "seeing... seeing..", doing metta meditation: "let them be devoid of anger, devoid of hate etc.", doing Karuna meditation: "let them be devoid of suffering, devoid of pain..." or simply observing it with Uppekha. But you will get bad Karma if you enjoy, get saddened or start hating the violence. :) – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 06:56
  • 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. – Orion Feb 05 '15 at 08:38
  • @Orion, If that is the case, buying vegetables & fruits also contribute to all the animals being killed due to pesticides and deforestation. Karma is intention. If you don't have the intention to kill, it's not going to be bad Karma whether someone holds you responsible or not. :) "that just sounds like indifference" - the problem here is you assuming that all kinds of indifference is bad Karma. A mind state becomes bad Karma only if it involves greed, aversion and ignorance. Doing Satipattana means Samma-sati which is devoid of those defilements. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 08:56
  • @SankhaKulathantille the problem here is you assuming that all kinds of indifference is bad Karma.All kinds of indifference is bad.Indifference should not be mistaken for equanimity. – Orion Feb 05 '15 at 09:05
  • Well, 'indifference' is an English word. For it to be bad, it should contain 1 of the 3 roots of evil. So it really depends on what you mean when you say 'indifference'. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 09:08
  • @Orion If what you are saying is true, you are Karmically responsible for eating your lunch today instead of giving it to an animal who starved today. You gain bad Karma for spending time to answer questions here instead of spending it to help a sick person or a beggar :) – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 09:14
  • @SankhaKulathantille Alright: Buying meat from the supermarket is not bad karma.Greed: You crave the taste of meat.Ignorance: Your ignoring the fact that an animal had to die for you to eat it in the first place.Aversion: Your indifferent. – Orion Feb 05 '15 at 09:23
  • @Orion And how is that any different from buying fruits? Greed: You crave the taste of fruit. Ignorance: not being aware of the animals that are killed in the fruit production and so on :) – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 09:29
  • In fact, whether it is meat or not, the real ignorance here is taking the taste as something good or taking it as "I tasting". The animal killed in the past is irrelevant. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 09:36
  • I feel indifference is a bad karma.. If you are the only person who follows the perceptions and nobody else in world follows it and actually violates all of them while you show indifference do you think you will be able to achieve an end to all sufferings in this life... What happens around you also affects you... So if it is upto you to lead others into good karma shouldnot you try it?.. Doesnot that becomes your dharma?.. – 0xdeadbeef Feb 05 '15 at 13:24
  • 'You', 'others' are all concepts. If you note seeing as just seeing instead of seeing a person, you will not be creating any Karma. Same with hearing, smelling, tasting etc. Read the Satipattana sutta and it'll be easier to understand. Also read the Sabba sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 13:36
  • 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 05 '15 at 14:28
  • @ChrisW So it is ok to use the word 'indifference' to refer to 'Upekkha' apart from 'equanimity'. Cool! – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 15:24
  • @SankhaKulathantille I think Bhikkhu Bodhi was saying that Upekkha (equanimity) ought to be understood as meaning, "I am indifferent to (unconcerned with) my own ego" ... and does not (or should not) mean, "I am indifferent to the well-being of other human (or other sentient) beings". – ChrisW Feb 05 '15 at 15:35
  • 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. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 15:38
  • And Upekkha doesn't always have to be devoid of ego. ex: The 4th Jhana. The Upekkha gained in Samatha meditation isn't without ego. – Sankha Kulathantille Feb 05 '15 at 15:50
0

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.

AN 6.63:

cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi

Intention, I tell you, is kamma