First precept and meat eating
Among the five lay precepts the first one is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living beings' play a very important role in human society. Taking this precept as consideration the Buddha, of course, admonished all his followers not only kill living beings but also advised not to harm any living beings by any means. The precept does not give any limitation of size of living creatures. Perhaps, its may included bacteria and other micro-organisms. If it is so, we may have to face difficulty in observing the percept.
There are four kinds of living being described in the Pali canon; They are; 1) Andaja (egg born), 2) Jalabuja (womb born), 3) Samsedaja (moisture born), and 4) Opapatika (spontaneous born). All those living beings, whether existing in niraya (hell), petti (hungry ghost), tiracchana (animals), manussa (human) or deva (heaven), are included here under the word 'sabbapana' is stated in the texts. Pana according to Pali English Dictionary is 'sentient being, creatures'; but in the book 'Buddhist Ethics and Essence of Buddhism by H. Saddhatissa' comments the word 'pana' in the highest and ultimate sense it is only psychic life or vital force. In the Mahavagga of the Vinaya, killing human being is the greatest offence (parajika) for monk, and killing other beings is not the gravest, and it consider as lesser offence. On the other hand, to safeguard society, killing of human being is the most important.
The commentarial tradition gives five conditions necessary to complete an act to be called murder. There are; (1) a living being; (2) knowledge that it is a living being; (3) a mind that thinks of killing; (4) the effort made to kill (including asking another to do it); and (5) the being dies through the effort. Taking these into consideration killing a living being by oneself and asking another to kill for him (indirectly) also is impure and he may not escape from the first precept.
Vegetarians claim that meat bought from market (already existed meat) is impure and it is proxy killing because it seems to be supporting the butcher to slaughter more animals for customers. If the first percept is applied to all creatures irrespective of size, eating mere vegetable also is impure and fall into this precept because micro insects which we can not see through our eyes are living every plantations. Emphasizing the first precept as characteristically eating meat which is already available in market is nothing related to this precept. By examining the five characteristics of the precepts both direct and indirect killing will not karmically completed. By bringing meat from market or ordering meat curry in restaurant is also has nothing to do with this. But one could increase this bad habit if he gets attached to it very much. And when meat is unavailable anywhere he may kill or order some one to kill for meat. Then the breaking of first precept is done by the cause of attachment to this. The Buddha allowed to his disciple to eat meat under three circumstances that is unseen, unheard and not doubt because monks in the Buddha time accepted food that offered by others. As monks are not seeking for meat, they try to avoid from being attached to it and they would never attempt to break the first precept whether by direct or indirect means. When we come to the vegetarianism, do we think vegetarian can not break the first precept if his attachment to vegetable is in extreme? Take the example of a person who plants vegetable for his daily meal because he is a strict vegetarian; and a person who plants vegetable for marketing. If animals or some insects destroy his plants, he might use material thing to drive away them. At least he has to harm or even kills those creatures. Then vegetable got from such sources also can be regarded as impure and he is a breaker of first precept. One who buys vegetable from market also seems to be supported to plant more and kill or harm more living beings. In this context, it would be fit to consider that merely consuming food, whether vegetable or meat without killing a being by one's own action or asking other to do so, has nothing to do with the first precept. This percept falls into bodily action as intention (cetana) is the basis. AS the Buddha statement 'cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami' volition or cetana is very important in every karmical act. This evidence point to the fact that meat already available in market or restaurant is not a breaking of first precept by those who buy it. It is related to those who killed and bring to the market for sale.
Among the five lay precepts the first one is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living beings' play a very important role in human society. Taking this precept as consideration the Buddha, of course, admonished all his followers not only kill living beings but also advised not to harm any living beings by any means. The precept does not give any limitation of size of living creatures. Perhaps, its may included bacteria and other micro-organisms. If it is so, we may have to face difficulty in observing the percept.
There are four kinds of living being described in the Pali canon; They are; 1) Andaja (egg born), 2) Jalabuja (womb born), 3) Samsedaja (moisture born), and 4) Opapatika (spontaneous born). All those living beings, whether existing in niraya (hell), petti (hungry ghost), tiracchana (animals), manussa (human) or deva (heaven), are included here under the word 'sabbapana' is stated in the texts. Pana according to Pali English Dictionary is 'sentient being, creatures'; but in the book 'Buddhist Ethics and Essence of Buddhism by H. Saddhatissa' comments the word 'pana' in the highest and ultimate sense it is only psychic life or vital force. In the Mahavagga of the Vinaya, killing human being is the greatest offence (parajika) for monk, and killing other beings is not the gravest, and it consider as lesser offence. On the other hand, to safeguard society, killing of human being is the most important.
The commentarial tradition gives five conditions necessary to complete an act to be called murder. There are; (1) a living being; (2) knowledge that it is a living being; (3) a mind that thinks of killing; (4) the effort made to kill (including asking another to do it); and (5) the being dies through the effort. Taking these into consideration killing a living being by oneself and asking another to kill for him (indirectly) also is impure and he may not escape from the first precept.
Vegetarians claim that meat bought from market (already existed meat) is impure and it is proxy killing because it seems to be supporting the butcher to slaughter more animals for customers. If the first percept is applied to all creatures irrespective of size, eating mere vegetable also is impure and fall into this precept because micro insects which we can not see through our eyes are living every plantations. Emphasizing the first precept as characteristically eating meat which is already available in market is nothing related to this precept. By examining the five characteristics of the precepts both direct and indirect killing will not karmically completed. By bringing meat from market or ordering meat curry in restaurant is also has nothing to do with this. But one could increase this bad habit if he gets attached to it very much. And when meat is unavailable anywhere he may kill or order some one to kill for meat. Then the breaking of first precept is done by the cause of attachment to this. The Buddha allowed to his disciple to eat meat under three circumstances that is unseen, unheard and not doubt because monks in the Buddha time accepted food that offered by others. As monks are not seeking for meat, they try to avoid from being attached to it and they would never attempt to break the first precept whether by direct or indirect means. When we come to the vegetarianism, do we think vegetarian can not break the first precept if his attachment to vegetable is in extreme? Take the example of a person who plants vegetable for his daily meal because he is a strict vegetarian; and a person who plants vegetable for marketing. If animals or some insects destroy his plants, he might use material thing to drive away them. At least he has to harm or even kills those creatures. Then vegetable got from such sources also can be regarded as impure and he is a breaker of first precept. One who buys vegetable from market also seems to be supported to plant more and kill or harm more living beings. In this context, it would be fit to consider that merely consuming food, whether vegetable or meat without killing a being by one's own action or asking other to do so, has nothing to do with the first precept. This percept falls into bodily action as intention (cetana) is the basis. AS the Buddha statement 'cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami' volition or cetana is very important in every karmical act. This evidence point to the fact that meat already available in market or restaurant is not a breaking of first precept by those who buy it. It is related to those who killed and bring to the market for sale.
No comments:
Post a Comment