ronnewmexico wrote:I am a strong advocate for vegetarianism but from what I have heard the actual negative karmic consequences related to this specific issue are considered by many to be relatively small in the total scheme of things.
Some disagree and say it's not that different actually. In either case, I think it's the intention that counts. The intention to lessen suffering. That intention, however, can also manifest in other forms of practice. I never tried to convince anyone to adopt another diet. Being a vegetarian is always a good choice unless one thinks there can come more benefit from adopting other diets.
Better perhaps if we had wanted to avoid this thing to be born in a family and culture that does not this thing.
Once born here in this environment, it is but one of many many other things that may produce unfavored karma.
Think your nation perhaps killing 600k if you happen to be american in a unwarranted war does not produce karma as this nation described is a form of democracy and not a totalitarian state....and I think you may be mistaken. Voicing concern or protest perhaps then there is little in the way of negative karma from that thing. That is cause of killing many many humans for no good reason.Though americans did not perhaps each individually intend that thing, that a american voices not a objection in a democracy of sorts implies a intention of sorts. AS no voice is voice for affirmation in democratic institutions.
I see no problem in people manifesting themselves as pro vegetarianism. I doubt it makes any difference though. Our civilization is addicted to meat consumption. Even if all Buddhists turned vegetarian, that wouldn't make a difference. Again, it's the intention that counts, I believe. It's not that because of you being a vegetarian a single cow will be spared. Animals are butchered by quotas. If the demand doesn't drop drastically
, the quotas will remain the same. Pro peace manifestations gather much more adherents. It's not comparable. Unfortunately, in our society animals are seen as things, goods.
Just me...I'd say being no voice in that nation be a far greater producer of unfavored karma than this thing.
But if one did have voice already in things of that sort, perhaps then one may care to consider this thing of perhaps lesser import.
If karma be ones sole concern in this thing.
I'm not sure if I get your point.
So karma.... yes perhaps, but most say not really a whole lot. REading not karma for each individual I'd say they may be right...I don't know.
It hurts beings is why I don't do it...karma or not...what matter that to compare to hurting beings when it may be avoided.
That really is the point, isn't it? Actually you can't do anything about it, rather than fight for an utopia. Animals will be hurt whether you want it or not. If there's a chance of benefiting a dead animal, whose death you had no control over, and his corpse is scattered in supermarkets, then I'd say it's better if you do it. Otherwise it will become waste, not come back to life. Of course you may choose not to investigate such practices, those that N talked about and keep being a vegetarian. You intention is still wholesome.
Karma is always in root faulted as it is I basis that provides its imperative for action....so
what do I care of faulted basis things effects.....personally. If it may produce suffering by itself karma...then I run from it or court its result.
But as it is I that is karma, the suffering....it may not....I fear it not. I is not. For others I worry for their karma...they believe in this false thing. Most of them. So you believe in the truth of that thing....worry then of that thing.
Unless you are fully enlightened, you will suffer the effects of your karmic potential. Believing it or not.
I will have no part of it...eating animals in the west produces suffering and fear in those animals, as I am compassion as everyone is....I will not, if I may avoid it.
And there's nothing wrong with having such wholesome intention. It's not that you will actually get results, as not a single animal will be spared because of your noble intention, but it is good training. Even better is benefiting an animal whose death we didn't cause or could avoid by acting in his corpse and creating a connection.
Let me give you an example. If you lived in a small village where you stopping eating meat would have an impact in the amount of animals slaughtered, then it would be shameless to keep eating it unless such action would somehow revert in their favor (as some stories say about enlightened being that ate animals causing them to reborn in pure lands). So assuming you don't have such power, it would be wiser not to eat them. That duck, cow, lamb, pig, chicken and so on would live their lives because you hadn't caused their death. It such situation, there's actual benefit for the animals. They survive because you chose not to eat them. In our civilization, there's not. Only the wholesome intention, which is good. Nobody says otherwise. Yet, even better would be benefiting those already dead if you can, even if it means eating them. It's not as if they'll get up from the shelf and go about their lives when you pass by and decide not to buy their corpse for consumption. You pass, keep your wholesome intention, but don't benefit that being in any way. Just yourself, because of the wholesome intention. Later it can lead you to benefit others, so it's good. Perhaps even that being in a future existence. But the cause isn't there, as it would be if you had created a karmic debt by eating its flesh, so who knows?