In order to obtain meat, a lay person must engage in the trade of meat. No sutta to my knowledge says the meat trade is acceptable. By buying meat I support the cruel system that does exactly what this paragraph condemns to hundreds of millions of animals every year. It is not my business to tell other dhamma practitioners how they should live their lives, but this sutta in no way advocates rewarding people who treat animals with cruelty financally for their misdeeds, so that they may continue to inflict suffering on their fellow earthlings, leading to terrible suffering both for themselves and others.
5 Likes
Yes. Sandal wearing, long haired, bearded, dirty, smelly, hippy, layabout ⌠Have I forgot any? Luckily itâs not like that now. Thank goodness for annica.
You have reminded me of that wonderful Ajahn Chah quote which I will outrageously alter here to: âDonât be a vegan, donât be a vegetarian, donât be anything at all. If you are anything at all you will sufferâ
(The original was: âDonât be an arahant, donât be a bodhisattva, donât be anything at all. If you are anything at all you will sufferâ)
4 Likes
The cranks predated the hippies. I recall being stuck for a weekâs accommodation in London in the mid 60s. The only cheap and respectable place I could find at short notice (via an information office at Paddington Station I think) was a Vegetarian Hostel in N Kensington. Dinner was basically the same every night: traditional boiled vegetables with nut loaf in place of meat. I was the youngest by far; everyone else was over 40. There were no overt signs of religiosity and I didnât think to ask them about their beliefs or motivation. Opportunity missed. Iâm sure Ajahn Chah would have considered them to be something.
Heh, if I carry on like this Iâll have to close the thread! 
Or move it.
9 Likes
A lay person might not shop yet be expected to eat from common meals or food stores. A household may include Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Thus "In order to obtain meat, a lay person must engage in the trade of meat " does not seem to be an observation, but an extrapolation based on incomplete or tacit knowledge.
When I have considered such extrapolations which I have made (on slightly similar topics), I found the loose threads of a View over my perception. What I had been seeing was a mental construct; underlying it was attachment(s).
I think recognizing this sort of dynamic is very useful for this Path.
3 Likes
Ok. Point taken. Not everyone lives like I or the people I know do. However, the point remains that there is a distinction between the eating of meat, and trading with meat. If I in a weak moment were to buy a big mac at the local McDonalds, all the quoted sutta really says is that I might just as well eat it. It is not the eating of animal flesh per se that is the problem. Meat is not ritually unclean. I do not partake of a demonic sacrament or some such nonsense. The bad kamma was when I paid for the burger, and by doing that helped keep the people who profit from the mistreatment and murder of animals continue to make money, and possibly also by the example I was setting. EDIT: I say bad kamma in my case because I have thought about this a great deal and am aware of what I am doing.
Of course, there are caveats: I must actually have a real choice. In my city, tasty and healthy vegetarian options are plentiful, even at McDonalds. That is not always the case. I have in fact stayed out of this discussion precisely because things arenât allways neat and tidy when it comes to issues like this. But in my opinion one is letting oneself off the hook too easily by merely quoting AN 10.176 and then having a nice steak. And since you mention attachments, it is very easy to become addicted to food, including meat, and so that argument cuts both ways.
6 Likes
Veganism isnât a high moral standard.
Veganism is a bare minimum, to donât support enslavement, torture and murder of billions of innocent sentient beings.
What happens to animals is greatest hell happining on Earth right now.
And every at least slightly compassionate and moral person should advocate veganism as bare minimum, in my humble opinion.
It is not like vegans donât have other moral issues. It should not be compared. It is not a high moral standard to be proud of, it is bare minimum.
If someone is interested in subject of veganism, I highly recommend lectures of Gary Yourofsky. I went vegan the day I heard his lecture and never looked back. It is really not hard when you go from the place of compassion when shopping and preparing meals.
Link: YouTube
I think monks should encourage people giving them only vegan food, out of compassion for animals, because I believe compassion should be more importaint than any rules, but that is just my opinion. I donât think of any beings on the Earth who needs more help than those poor âanimal industryâ animals 
The times have changed completely between Buddhaâs times and how âanimal industryâ looks today, so suttas are not great reference in this subject.
Also, like Ajahn Brahm with bhikkhuni ordination simply did what was âgood thing to doâ, I also think that veganism is âgood thing to doâ, no matter what people of the past, or some people of the present think of it. It just feels extremely wrong to support treating sentient beings like it is done in âanimal industryâ. Especially today, when we have so much food options that being on a healthy vegan diet is absolutely not a problem in most parts of the world.
Vegetarianism is not better than carnism. Milk industry is actually even more cruel than meat industry. Separating calfs from their cow mothers at birth (they are âproducedâ only so mother have more milk for humans) is crazy sick. Of course calf is later killed for food or made another factory of milk. The mother when her time for âgiving milkâ is over is of course killed for food. These animals often live in extremely cruel conditions, are treated with utter hatred and contempt, and most of them never see sunlight even once in their lives. Only veganism is full sulotion to the problem of this utter cruelty towards animals.
People who are not vegan choose either their palate pleasure or social convinience over reducing cruelty towards innocent sentient beings.
In this greedy world, where for âbusiness peopleâ only another â0â at the end of their money sum matters, only stopping putting money to their pocket can stop them from doing that.
Sorry for this âharshâ words. but it is just the truth. It is the world that is so harsh. Compassionate people should not agree to that. Animals canât speak or fight for their freedom, only we humans can do this for them, and we should not indulge in conviniences but try to help at least not adding our brick to this wall of suffering.
I also love this vegan sentence: What is the best taste of food? Taste of pure conscience. Sounds very buddhist to me.
It is great to see monks like Ajahn Sujato or Thich Nhat Hanh, who openly speak about importance of veganism in buddhist culture.
Link: YouTube
With metta
9 Likes
Veganism works to help reduce no. Of beings killed. The article shows slaughterhouses are closing down due to falling demand. @stu
3 Likes
Yes indeed. The slaughterhouses are closing down, but does that actually reduce the number of beings killed? Or, as I suspect the number of beings killed are roughly the same. Why do I say this? Because I think that it takes more than losing your job for a killer to become a non killer. But there is no study that I can find for this so I donât know for sure.
1 Like
Are you suggesting that all slaughterhouse workers who got laid off will kill street animals or jungle animals just for fun or to fulfill some dark twisted desires of them? At the same rate of commercial efficiency of slaughter houses?
If not, then itâs quite clear that the number of beings killed should be reduced.
4 Likes
Iâm just speaking from experience. I think that I have been pretty consistent in this thread, so if you have read my previous posts my position should not have come as a surprise to you. Please see above for the various arguments that I have given in support of my position. I shall not restate them here.
I donât think Iâm saying anything controversial from a EBT point of view. Generally defilements in the mind are removed using the eightfold path on that same defiled and habitual mind rather than using capitalist mechanisms such as supply and demand which often have unforeseen (or foreseen and ignored) side effects.
We can both certainly make assertions about this based on our experience (and I have), but without the necessary studies (which havenât been provided so far) we simply donât know how it works and what the overall ramifications of reducing slaughterhouses might be.
My concern is really around the increase or decrease of compassion in the world. Does going vegetarian or vegan increase compassion in the world? I think it does not. In fact in my estimation compassion seems to decrease with increases in vegetarianism/veganism. But I am aware that many (probably most) people think it does increase compassion. I would like to see research into this interesting area.
2 Likes
There is death associated too with growing crops: the land needs to be prepared and ploughed (killing insects and worms), defended from pests like insects, snails, rodents, small animals, birds (even with organic methods, e.g. introducing biological predators or cats for rodents, that involves some killing), and then harvesting with a certain kill count also (insects, small nesting birds, small animals etc.). Obviously raising animals feed on such crops makes the kill count even worse (as well as being calorifically inefficient).
However, what about if the land is used to raise cattle eating grass? Pesticides do not need to be used and there doesnât have to be ploughing and harvesting. Is the âkill countâ associated with that particular land less than would be if we grew crops instead? Possibly.
The question crossed my mind and I raised this point in an earlier post. However, a google search showed that Iâm not the first to think this point.
There have been a handful of academic papers considering this question. For
The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores by Steven Davis where he reckons thereâs twice as much death in growing a field of cereals than a field of grazing cattle.
Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davisâs Omnivorous Proposal by Gaverick Matheny
attempts to counter some of these points. For example, he argues that even if the death count in a field of cereal is double, cereals far more efficiently produce calories. About 2.6 times more efficiently than grass-fed dairy and 10 times more efficiently than meat so that per calorie crops would still be less cruel.
I could only find a few papers and Iâm not sure how trustworthy the numbers are. Another matter to consider in Ireland where I live where 80% of agriculture involves cows grazing on grass in fields for almost all the year for dairy or beef, is what would happen if everyone stopped eating beef or drinking milk. Would the fields just be left grow wild? I doubt it. Most likely cereal crops would be planted (or biofuels grown instead etc.). So the calories efficiency argument doesnât really apply. An equal area of land for cows would be converted into an equal amount of land for crops. And, if growing cereals per hectare is inherently more cruel than the raising of cattle per hectare on grass, then the overall level of cruelty might actually possibly increase. Iâm not sure I trust the numbers in those papers though.
I would say however, that I donât think that commercial slaughterhouses (in the UK) are particularly efficient at killing. Much of the time is consumed by cleaning surfaces, tools and machinery because of the regulations and inspections. It becomes more efficient if the meat is being prepared for animal consumption rather than human consumption as many of the regulations donât apply or are downgraded. But still, there are much more efficient ways of killing. During the foot and mouth crisis in the UK a lot of slaughterhouses were closed down, but the slaughtermen got jobs culling cows on farmers land. The killing was a lot more efficient on the farms - much greater than an order of magnitude higher. It was also more brutal. For example the old style bolt guns were used because the number of animals that had to be dispatched quickly made the more humane electric stunning used in modern slaughterhouses impracticable.
2 Likes
Shouldnât we just ask, âwhat would the buddha doâ?
8 Likes
yes, thatâs interesting. Maybe it can be related with dfferences between metta and karuna, and near- far enemies in the 4 Brahma-viharas classification:
(factor - near e. - far e.)
- metta - attachment - hatred
- karuna - pity - cruelty
- mudita - comparison - envy
- upekkha - indifference - greed
There is an interesting study here:
Some conclussions from this study can be related with that disonance of a âlack of compassionâ perceived by some vegan people in non-vegan Buddhist people:
âPeople may not be excusing themselves or reducing their dissonance, but truly acting in accordance with their beliefs, beliefs aligned with both caring for the effects of meat-eating and continuing to eat meat. If people believe that changing their behavior will not make much of a difference, because the solution is primarily technological or political, or a complex combination of all, then there is no paradox or dissonance to begin with. People justify coherently their choice (Discourses 1â3), or simply live with their contradictions, aware and easy with the fact that they are contradictions, unlike cases of dissonance (Discourse 4).â
I suppose in the Buddhist case one can add the complexity of Dhamma for every different person
2 Likes
So Iâll be waiting now for the updated classier WWBD Buddhist version of this: 
2 Likes
would someone make one, already?!
2 Likes
The good news is, we actually know what the Buddha would do. He gave us the Dhamma. Do good, try not to do harm. Eightfold Path. We are the owners and heirs of our actions and intentions. Meditate, cultivate insight, and decide for ourselves what is good and beneficial. Easy peasy. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, we get to figure this stuff out for ourselves, and then own it. 
7 Likes
This confuses me. How would one measure an immeasurable?
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion âŚ
Compassion is an immeasurable to be practiced as such. By measuring something we concern ourselves with limitations and forms. With each decision faced we choose compassion according to the information we have at hand.
If I am hungry I do not kill the cat. If it dies first I might eat it with gratitude. If I die first itâs welcome to my body. If the cat is very large, the cat would probably help me die sooner.
Are mettÄ, karuášÄ, muditÄ and upekkhÄ intrinsically immeasurable? Or are they mental qualities that in their normal occurrence are âmeasurableâ (i.e., subject to limits and bounds) but which may become immeasurable when successfully developed?
3 Likes