/lit/ - Literature

>>18402579
>At least in the Theravada tradition, obviously it's not good for me to be buying meat from someone but is it as bad as violating the first precept?
the first precept is I undertake to observe the rule to abstain from taking life
not "do not eat meat" or "do not buy meat"

>When the Buddha accepted donations of meat, meat that wasn't slaughtered for him but just gifted to him, if the family that is giving him the meat violated the first precept by slaughtering one of their animals is the Buddha not essentially advocating for it's violation?
In the Theravada tradition monks ask lay followers to not slaughter an animal specifically for their consumption but if they have a portion of their house hold meat given to the monks this is ok.

>I just don't understand how it's ok to eat meat in the Theravada tradition but then have a bunch of slaughterer's who condemn themselves to awful karma
well "refrain from eating meat" is not a precept. like I said above the precept is I undertake to observe the rule to abstain from taking life

>Unless of course the meat was roadkill in which case I suppose it'd be ok cause the driver didn't have the intention to harm the animal but no society that I know of is formed around eating roadkill
Its not the meat eating that is ever the problem it is the killing that is against the first precept.
Even if accidently kill something that is breaking the first precept

Taoism just seems like primitive Buddhism the philosophy isn't fleshed out as well is primarily centered around Chinese self help rather than any transcendence