This is a response to Lee Yue Heng’s article ‘Fifty Steps Laugh At One Hundred Steps’ at http://ahhengwrites.blogspot.com/2012/05/fifty-steps-laugh-at-one-hundred-steps.html as on 21.05.12. It’s a strange title, with a strange explanation, because it assumes vegans are laughing at meat-eaters? I have never heard of such cases. I’ve heard of many meat-eaters sniggering at vegans self-righteously though, unfortunately. The below response should remain relevant, provided that the article in the above link remains unedited. If you are already pro-vegan, you might want to skip that link and just read the below.

[1] It is difficult to see how those who eat cows and chickens are moral or respectful towards them in that aspect – of eating. For example, if a man-eating tiger eats us humans, will it be easy for the eaten humans to see how the tiger might actually still be moral and respectful to them? Of course, non-vegans can be moral and respectful in various other ways to various sentient beings. They can even be moral and respectful to cows and chickens but with bad faith, turn away just when they know they are about to be killed for them. Almost all meat-eaters turn away from the sight and sound of animals being killed in slaughterhouses. Yes, they are killed only for meat consumers.

[2] We should also respect the insects who are killed by the insecticide used on farms. Meat-consumption, however, can be linked to up to 10 times more use of insecticide due to use of it to produce 10 times much crops for animal feed to fatten up the animals for slaughter This has been discussed at length at http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/all-mothers-deserve-respect-of-course already.

[3] As a vegan who does not consume animals, I have no problem with people wanting to be meat-eaters. But it’s quite disturbing when meat-eaters who go out of their way to put themselves on a moral holier-than-thou pedestal and pontificate to vegans, inadequately too. Anti-vegan posts appearing on my Facebook’s news feed is the equivalent of unwelcome spam in my mailbox. And I am free to either ignore, delete or respond. (Of course, there is the option of opting out of unwanted posts of friends, or to unfriend.)

[4] Well-informed vegans know that almost all foods are at the expense of other beings in an interconnected way – which is why veganism is chosen mindfully as a means to be connected to less killing. In http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/all-mothers-deserve-respect-of-course are systematic replies to the non pro-vegan news articles hyperlinked in the blog post.

[5] Here are replies to Monbiot’s article, with quotation marks for excerpts, and comments between:

[a] ’There’s no doubt that the livestock system has gone horribly wrong. Fairlie describes the feedlot beef industry (in which animals are kept in pens) in the US as “one of the biggest ecological cock-ups in modern history”. It pumps grain and forage from irrigated pastures into the farm animal species least able to process them efficiently, to produce beef fatty enough for hamburger production. Cattle are excellent converters of grass but terrible converters of concentrated feed. The feed would have been much better used to make pork. Pigs, in the meantime, have been forbidden in many parts of the rich world from doing what they do best: converting waste into meat.’ The article goes on to be pro-pork. It is speciesism to choose to exploit one sentient being over another. What would it be like if an alien sees human meat to be cost-effective? How about being pro-non-killing of sentient beings? How about showing clearly why the path of least killing for all humans (not just those living in UK) is actually eating of pigs and such instead of being mindful vegans? The day it is proven clearly enough with the maths, statistics and all, am sure it would hit international deadlines and convince all vegans to let go of their ‘ill’ ways. I would like to see statistics of how soya ‘trashes the Amazon’, versus the increase in clearing forests for grazing grounds and for animal feed crops due to the increase in demand for meat, not that I’m a ‘soyan’, but a vegan, who consumes more than just soya.

[b] By all means, please switch to more environmentally and humane animal-breeding and slaughtering models. Would like to see worldwide statistics comparing the amount of land required to breed crops for feeding meat animals versus crops directly for human consumption. Remember – cows alone need 10 times more crops than humans.

[c] ’the stuffing of animals with grain to boost meat and milk consumption, mostly in the rich world – which reduces the total food supply. Cut this portion out and you would create an increase in available food which could support 1.3 billion people.’ Indeed! ‘Fairlie argues we could afford to use a small amount of grain for feeding livestock, allowing animals to mop up grain surpluses in good years and slaughtering them in lean ones. This would allow us to consume a bit more than half the world’s current volume of animal products, which means a good deal less than in the average western diet.’ Until Fairlie is able to implement these changes, it’s fair to say that environmentally, these animals are better kept off the plate. How many actual litres of water is needed to produce a kilogram of beef, if is it not 100,000 litres?

[d] ’UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s claim that livestock are responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, a higher proportion than transport. Fairlie shows that it made a number of basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation that culminates in cattle ranching in the Amazon to cattle: in reality it is mostly driven by land speculation and logging.’ What happens to the logged lands? Do they become grazing grounds? Or crop land for planting animal feed, or…. ? If so, it’s not a miscalculation.

[e] ’It muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with ongoing pollution. It makes similar boobs in its nitrous oxide and methane accounts, confusing gross and net production.’ If the logged lands do become grazing grounds or animal crop land, this wouldn’t be a confusion. ‘Conversely, the organisation greatly underestimates fossil fuel consumption by intensive farming: its report seems to have been informed by a powerful bias against extensive livestock keeping.’ What is the fossil fuel consumption by intensive farming for crops for animals? Would that not be worse, as animals can consume up to 10 times more crops than vegans? Why would there be a powerful bias against extensive livestock farming? Surely, not all the UN scientists are vegan!

[f] ’Overall, Fairlie estimates that farmed animals produce about 10% of the world’s emissions: still too much, but a good deal less than transport.’ Well, too much is too much, and it’s just an estimate, that might be wrong. ‘He also shows that many vegetable oils have a bigger footprint than animal fats, and reminds us that even vegan farming necessitates the large-scale killing or ecological exclusion of animals: in this case pests.’ Would like to know which vegetable oil has the least footprint and which animal fats has the least for fair comparison. The truth it, extra oil is not needed for veganism, as espoused by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, who was crucial in converting Bill Clinton to veganism: http://www.heartattackproof.com/qanda.htm and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4hbV4RgzI8 Vegan farming necessitates killing to harvest crops, but remember that animals reared can consume up to 10 times of these crops, which means there is much more killing done for a pound of flesh than a pound of vegetables. ’On the other hand, he slaughters the claims made by some livestock farmers about the soil carbon they can lock away.’ Good!

[g] ’By keeping out of the debate over how livestock should be kept, those of us who have advocated veganism have allowed the champions of cruel, destructive, famine-inducing meat farming to prevail.’ Indeed, ethics matter. This is how livestock is kept today in many places – http://www.meat.org I would like to see all meat-eaters further justify their meat-eating (if possible at all) by them speaking up for animals’ welfare before they are slaughtered. But here is the irony – how can you systematically demand animals, via active consumption and market forces, to be reared, imprisoned and slaughtered – all in the name of their welfare? Reeks of hypocrisy?

[6] If veganism is indeed the kinder and wiser diet, which overwhelming evidence shows, veganism does involves less greed and delusion for humankind. And it is the path of least murders because vegans consume less in quantity and lower on the food chain – plants. No proper vegan believes that insects killed for vegan produce are not as worthy as a cow or a chicken. That would be speciesism; not the spirit of universal compassion and equanimity that founds veganism. In fact, it is exactly for reducing killing, that people turn vegans. Remember – meat animals consume up to 10 times for crops than vegans – which means 10 times more insects are killed. Simple maths, that many keep missing, despite repeated explanation. Animals are not ‘often slaughtered against their will’ – but always murdered against their wishes. Insects and small animals might die for vegan produce, but what about the 10 times more crops (and thus killing) for meat to be possible? Does that not make meat-eaters 10 times more morally culpable? The irony of those who proclaim that the meat and vegan diet are exactly morally equal is a no-brainer in this sense, for the intelligent and fair-minded reader who has examined the facts.

[7] Of course, when both meat-eaters and vegans eat the same amount of food, they can eat with the same amount of greed. However, as in point [6], the latter is connected to less murders, while the delusion of the meat-eaters over this fact keeps them eating meat with no compunctions. Vegans are folks who are willing to give up their greed for the taste of real meat. For the mock meat argument, please see http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2011/03/a-brief-history-of-the-love-hate-relationship-with-mock-meats Hey, at least no real animals are harmed. Meat-eaters, however cling to greed for meat despite many facts on meat’s ills. Again, it’s not all or nothing. Anyone can consume less meat in good time. Even if not, no one can force anyone to drop meat.

[8] There was no mention that vegans are more virtuous or pure on the whole, but in terms of conscious choice of diet out of compassion and wisdom, they are more virtuous in that sense; and not necessarily in all other aspects of life. The Amagandha Sutta reminds us that it is not meat-eating that makes one spiritually unpure, but greed, hatred and delusion (the three poisons). It is not what one eats that makes one pure or not, but in the context of eating, if one consumes with greed, hatred and delusion, that person is feeding the poisons that much more. This means it is possible for a meat-eater to consume with less of the three poisons than a vegan. However, if both parties are offered choices of diet, with knowledge that of the above moral issues, the one who chooses the kinder and wiser diet is in that aspect of life, kinder and wiser. This is not a self-righteous idea. As mentioned, a person might be a good vegan but a person poor in character in all other aspects of life. But this good vegan can practise to become better in the other aspects of life too. Likewise, meat-eaters who are already wonderful in other aspects of life can be more wonderful if they reduce meat consumption.

[9] There is no actual quotable record in the Pali Canon of the Buddha himself eating any meat. This is while, in the Mahayana canon, there are many occasions of the Buddha speaking of the ills of meat-eating: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian In the few cases of the Buddha being offered meat, there is no clear record that the Buddha did eat it. Even in the case of Siha’s offering, it is not clear that he killed any animal for the Buddha directly or not, or that the Buddha ate it or not.

[10] The Buddha permitted meat-consumption for random alms-seeking monastics if the animals are not seen, heard or suspected to be killed for them. Consumer meat purchased and eaten by laypeople is however meat suspected to be killed for them – via the market forces of deliberate demand and supply: http://www.4ui.com/eart/214eart1.htm Yes, the usual suspects demanding animal slaughter directly or indirectly are human consumers. As it seems, in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not clearly dispense advice on meat-consumption for laity. If the Buddha ruled butchery as wrong livelihood, is paying others to carry on this trade perfectly blameless? Yes, the money from meat-consumers indirectly pays for others to do the bloody task of killing on their behalf. This does not mean all Buddhists absolutely have to be vegetarians or vegans though. To each his own, but for the Bodhisattva path, vegetarianism is a Bodhisattva precept in the Brahma Net Sutra, to be lived to best one can. It is hypocritical to wish all beings to be well and happy while directly demanding consumption of some of these beings’ flesh for every meal. On the validity of the Mahayana sutras, please see http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest

[11] No wise Buddhist (including the Buddha) would demand that all Buddhists must be vegetarian or vegan, as there might be practical constraints in many cases. The Buddha rejected Devadatta’s demand for compulsory vegetarianism in the Sangha because the monastics in those times lived by random alms food. As the saying goes, not that they are beggars, ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. Many Theravadin monastics worldwide today are vegetarian because they live less by alms food and are connected to laypeople who offer vegetarian food. A popular Theravada monk who visits Singapore regularly is said to never eat meat offered on a buffet spread by laypeople. He picks the non-meat. It would be better if he spoke to discourage meat offerings of course.

[12] Continual buying of meat incites continual killing for the meat market. It’s simple economics. If there are no or less buyers, there will be no or less suppliers. To the extent one that one is entrenched in the supply and demand cycle, it is the extent to which one is personally involved in it, directly or less directly. It is easy to find meat that one has not witnessed by sight or sound to be from animals killed for one (just avoid slaugtherhouses in bad faith to animals), but all meat available in the market IS specifically killed ONLY for meat consumers. This is in contrast to millions of vegetarians and vegans worldwide, who have removed themselves from the supply and demand for meat.

Enough said… now back to work… (The length of the above is what I meant earlier when I said I lacked and needed time to reply in detail.) 

Bud: (22.02.12) Hi Bhante, On this – ‘There are numerous passages in the Vinaya that refer to the Buddha or the monastics eating meat, and meat is regularly mentioned as one of the standard foods’ – Is it possible to share a few references, in particular to the Buddha himself eating meat? Thank you with Metta.

Bhante: (22.02.12) Ohh, I don’t have time to check the references right now. Is anyone able to supply this? If not, try reminding me in a week or so if I haven’t got round to it by then…The obvious case of the Buddha eating meat is the time when Uppalavanna brought meat to him. I can’t remember the reference, but I think it’s under parajika 2. Then there is the Buddha’s last meal, but of course the interpretation of that is uncertain. [It could just be truffles.]

Bud: (29.02.12) Hi Bhante, as you suggested, here is a gentle request reminder (1 week later) for the references needed. Thank you for your time. With Metta.

Bud: (20.03.12) Hi Bhante, do take your time. Would require your kind help as I can’t locate the references you mentioned. Thank you with Metta.

Bud: (21.05.12) Hi Bhante, as gleaned from a vegetarian Theravada Buddhist professor who has written a few books, it seems that there is actually no sutta whereby it is clearly stated that the Buddha ate meat. Thought this should be of interest. Er… this would mean the opening line is erroneous – ‘The Buddha ate meat. This is a fairly well attested fact.’ There is a difference between allowing meat and eating meat. With Metta.

If you have further relevant comments on the above, do share it at the most appropriate place – by joining the comments thread in the opening link. On the title of that blog’s article, it is without a question mark. If it is with one, I would answer in this way – ‘Buddhists should work towards the perfection of compassion and wisdom in all aspects of life. How much one decides to advance in each aspect of life is of course a personal choice.’

Relevant points to note… The monastic rules in terms of diet are for random alms-seeking monastics, not laypeople, who have the power of choice of food. In the Mahayana canon, the Buddha speaks at length against meat-eating, especially for Bodhisattvas in training. It is also a viable theory that the Buddha progressively spoke more against meat-eating when his audience became more ready. Such is the power of greed for meat. Even today, many Buddhist resist pro-vegetarian teachings. And in case you imagine the Mahayana sutras are not by the Buddha, it means you have missed this important piece of 1994 news, that is a clear sign that the Pali canon alone does not constitute the earliest found written teachings: http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-buddhism-truest

Someone initiated a debate on vegetarianism on one of my pro-vegan Facebook posts: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/all-mothers-deserve-respect-of-course Each non pro-vegan point from him was systematically debated over and overcome. Next, he writes a lengthy blog post, seemingly to ‘summarise’ and extend it, and shares it with his Facebook friends. He posts the link in one of my Facebook entries too. I would prefer the debate to continue on the previous thread for fair context and continuity, and stated so.

Seeing the arguments in his blog post to be worn, and as I was too busy to reply point by point (again), I chose to delete it, due to these reasons: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/censorship A Facebook friend of his thinks it’s ‘a sign of insecurity and such people are normally duplicitous in their activities.’ Hmmm… as in the second link, mentioned by me, this is speculative. He must have missed the reasons for deletion stated, or simply doesn’t buy them.

However, I will still take time to reply to the post I deleted later, to prove I’m open. It’s just that I don’t like the idea of misinformation being propagated via my accounts when I’m too busy to respond in a timely manner.  Am thankful, on second look, it isn’t too lengthy to reply. I will only post my reply here though, so as to not fuel another debate via Facebook, that might confuse my friends, as the earlier debate probably did to some extent.

As a writer, I don’t like unfair censorship too, although as an editor, I do see sound reasons for fair censorship at times – even if it is deemed unfair by some. Every single professional editor does some censoring. If one does not, any anything goes for official publications online or offline, this must be a poor editor. What more to say one’s own Facebook page, that one has every right of control over?

Here is one instance of not even real censorship; just a temporal holding back of information till a more appropriate time, with the availability of more appropriate information in response. The Buddha too taught of the importance of timely speech. I delete information that has potential to harm sentient beings. This includes non pro-vegan stuff. Thanks for understanding, on the behalf of voiceless sentient beings. (The article after the next is the response article.)

Lee Yue Heng (L): [On his non pro-vegan link being deleted from S's Facebook profile.]  It seems like I was censored by Shen Shi’an. If it is indeed true, I concede that he has every right to suppress views that he did not agree with, but nevertheless I find it intriguing…

Shen Shi’an (S): Further discussion welcomed at Friday’s Facebook link for continuity [instead of digression]. Heng, I lack time to read same old arguments again and again to refute. FYI, i refuted an entire anti-vege book before. Life is too short: http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/07/the-buddha%E2%80%99s-real-views-on-meat-eating

L: It’s not really about the issues. This is a principal of fairness. If I did not delete your piece and allowed it to be linked on my Facebook page even though I do not agree with it, I assumed the same courtesy would be extended to me. But like I said, it’s your page.

S: If you wish to argue your points with true experts in secular terms, I recommend doing so at https://www.facebook.com/vegetariansocietysingapore

L: Well, as long as they don’t attempt to censor my views, a fruitful discussion is always possible.

S: Yes, Vegetarian Society Singapore probably has more helpers for replying. Me just one person. Honestly, as I key this before the shrine at home, the only reason your link was deleted is because I sincerely see veganism as a kinder way of life and do not wish my Facebook friends to waver in their pro-vegan stance by reading your post, which I disagree with from near the first para onwards…. but lack time to reply in detail, as explained above. [Do read the link above if interested on my reply to the classic misunderstandings of Buddhist/secular veganism.]

L: I find it intriguing that you would repeatedly delete my links because it suggests an intolerance of alternate views, which you express by deleting them away. Why can’t you let your readers make up their minds by reading both our views? But like I have said, it is your page and you are free to do as you please.

S: Yes indeed. Agree with your thrice said last line, though not with the first speculative one :-] May all beings be well and happy. The next time I see you and your wife at a public talk, I’ll shake your hand. Maybe we can have a chat then. Communicating in person should prove more fruitful.

L: Indeed. May we meet in auspicious circumstances one day! Good night.

Here is a discussion initiated by L, which he claims to be robust, which isn’t, IMHO… At least, not from his side. But I’ll leave whether this is really so for readers to decide. If you are already pro-vegan, you might just wish to skip his parts, though they do seem to represent typical skewed views, which are in that sense interesting to note. Please feel free to forward this to friends with similar misperceptions on the merits of veganism. Our choice of diet and lifestyle can indeed be kinder and wiser. Our choices are not of arbitrary impact. This is what veganism is about. Look out here, for my book on Buddhist perspectives on vegetarianism and veganism soon, with research materials based on the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings. Final edit is underway.

Lee Yue Heng (L): [Commenting on above picture posted in Facebook by S] Then shall we say that all insects deserve respect and therefore we shouldn’t eat vegetables? After all, every vegetarian meal is a result of a holocaust for insects when insecticide is used to clear land for farming…

Shen Shi’an (S): Organic produce kill less. And behind every pound of flesh, the animal has to consume much much more crops to fatten up.

‘I have love for the footless,for the bipeds too I have love; I have love for those with four feet,for the many-footed I have love.’ – The Buddha  (Anguttara Nikaya II, 72)

‘About 10 kg of food is fed to cows to produce 1 kg of beef.’ : http://www.vegetarian-society.org/WorldHunger

More on respect for cows and chickens: ‘Cattle reared for milk production are exploited and made to suffer, just like animals reared for meat. They suffer from lameness, mastitis (inflammation of the udders) and other illnesses and – worst of all – they are forcibly separated from their calves just days after they are born so that humans can drink their milk. Cows are not some kind of special animal that produces milk automatically: just like every other animal, including us, they only produce milk to nurse their young. Male dairy calves, meanwhile, are useless to the dairy industry and are usually shot at birth. Meanwhile, egg-laying hens may be crammed into battery cages or disgusting, disease ridden percheries and forced to produce twenty times the number of eggs as are natural to them. Even free range and organic layers face disease and parasites – and are slaughtered for cheap meat as soon as their productivity falls below the level that the egg business will accept. Male chicks are as useless to the industry as male dairy calves and all are killed – including those on free-range and organic systems.’ : http://www.viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php

More on respect for Mothers:

‘A being who has not been your mother
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
A being who has not been your father
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
A being who has not been your brother
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
A being who has not been your sister
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
A being who has not been your son
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
A being who has not been your daughter
at one time in the past is not easy to find.
Why is that? From an unfathomable beginning comes rebirth.’

[Hence, there are many ways which all have been related.]

- The Buddha (Mata Sutta)

 L: ‘Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.’ – The Buddha (Book of Vinaya, Chapter 4)

The fact remains that just like meat-eaters, the diet of vegans requires millions of insects to be killed and damage to the environment. So vegans actually should not be so self-righteous. Our existence is sustained by the death of countless sentient beings. Of course we should try to minimize killing, but to say that vegans are more moralistic is simplistic. Which is also why the Buddha, in his infinite wisdom, refused to ban meat-eating or make vegetarianism compulsory for the monks.

S: [The above quote refers to random alms-seeking monastics, not consumers with the power of choice, whose choices obviously feed or starve the supply-demand cycle for murder of animals. It's simple economics] On real suspect meat (that the Buddha could be referring to as well): http://www.4ui.com/eart/214eart1.htm (The Invisible Conveyor Belt of Meat & Murder) Who are the usual suspects? Based on this fact: ‘About 10 kg of food is fed to cows to produce 1 kg of beef.’ This means meat-consumption requires the deaths of at least 10 times more sentient beings. No worries, have not come across vegans who imagine they don’t cause any deaths at all. Vegans just try to minimise killing. Vegans are just folks who try to speak up for voiceless animals and against those who are self-righteous about eating animals

L: We can keep trading links or quotes till the cows come home (pun intended). But at the end of the day, your vegatarian meal is the result of millions of insects being killed and damage to the environment. My non-vegetarian meal is the result of animals being slaughtered. This is life. Our exisence is predicated on the lives of other beings. Vegans who speak up for ‘voiceless animals’ by banging the morality drum while consuming food that is the result of regular holocausts for insects…is there some inconsistency? When you eat your vegetarian meal, do you feel guilty about the millions of insects who have died via insecticide?

S: The Buddha taught vegetarianism as a Bodhisattva precept in the Brahma Net Sutra. And it makes sense, because how can one be an active animal-eater when one has the choice not to feed the supply-demand cycle of meat-murder, which runs counter to the wish for all beings to be well and happy.

‘A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha-nature and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.’

L: Then should it not be the case that Bodhisattvas should also not be vegans by feeding the supply-demand cycle for vegetables which causes the mass murder of insects by insecticide?

S: If you reread the above, it’s you who use words like ‘self-righteous’ and banging the morality drum’. Me dont’ use harsh words :-] There has never been denial that we all harm beings indirectly, even if vegans. As stats clearly show, vegans harm less. May all beings harm less, whether they are vegans or not. Not another link trade, but for my other friends to see too: http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_weekday_vegetarian.html There is no need to draw a firm line between meat-eaters and vegans. Everyone can do what they can to slant to the kinder side. It’s not all or nothing.

L: You have mistaken directness for harshness. The fact remains that whatever you eat, some life has to be sacrificed. So the pot should not be calling the kettle black. Not being harsh.

W: Such old school argument. Vegetarians or vegans, we did not say our diet is void of killing but certainly much less than meat-eater. U mentioned “holocaust for insects”, but a huge percentage of the crops grown on earth goes to feed the intensively breeding farmed animals which in the end feed human. If we use that percentage of crops to feed human instead, there will probably be no starving people. Self-righteous? We never say that vegetarians or vegans are the perfect. It can never be perfect but certainly less harmful and more compassion than meat-eating. We encourage our friends and family to go for a more compassionate diet but we never force feed anyone. Choice is always theirs.

S: In case some don’t get this chat, the gise of it is this, meat-eating is not just mass-murder of animals, but mass-murder of about 10 times more sentient beings as these animals need to eat much more crops. It’s thus kinder to consume lower on food chain by direct consumption of crops. Here are some undeniable good reasons to go vegan: http://viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php

Apologies, L, for hearing words like ‘banging the morality drum’ as an actual drumming sound when they are read. As above, ‘There has never been denial that we all harm beings indirectly, even if vegans. As stats clearly show, vegans harm less. May all beings harm less, whether they are vegans or not.’

L: I apologize if I sound abrasive. My writing is simple and straightforward. I used to believe that a vegetarian diet is inherently more ethical. After having examined the facts on both sides, I no longer think so. It is not what we eat that makes us pure or moral. It’s really the state of mind. Of course one can argue that compassionate people will not eat the flesh of animals, but the counter argument would be that compassionate people should not sponsor the genocide of millions of insects. It goes on and on…

S: I used to believe that a vegetarian diet is inherently more ethical. After examining the facts, I no longer think that is enough. That’s why I became vegan. It’s not what we eat that makes us more pure or moral, but how we eat – with more greed and delusion or with less. Have realised that veganism involves less greed and delusion for humankind. (Er…. not my personal point of view only, but that of millions of vegans worldwide.) If we truly wish to be more compassionate, we should consume as low and little on the food chain as possible. This just happens to be called veganism. It’s the path of least murders.

L: Who are we to say that the life of insects is not as worthy as the life of animals? That’s just the projection of human beings. Try telling the insects killed to produce your vegetarian meal: ‘It’s okay for you to die because you are lower on the food chain.’ Btw, the statement that vegans are less greedy and delusional is a completely subjective assertion which cannot be proven. It’s like saying that people who appreciate music are more cultured than those who don’t. It’s an unfalsifiable statement. This type of holier-than -thou statements made by vegetarians that I have a problem with. Rhetoric like this is probably designed to bolster the egos of the vegans, to assume moral superiority over the meat-eaters.

S: I think I finally know where you are missing the point… Let me spell out the maths…. ‘About 10 kg of food is fed to cows to produce 1 kg of beef.’ What this means is that the cows consume 10 times more crops than vegans, which means 10 times more insect genocides are needed for meat. This is why the insect genocide argument doesn’t hold. Vegans are linked to at least 10 times LESS insect genocides. Vegans practise non-speciesism towards insects and all. On the ‘greed and delusion’, was referring to matters such as these, not others. It’s nothing personal; just facts.

Seriously, having been vegetarian and then vegan for together about 18 years, and knowing many vege friends, plus some from Vegetarian Society, I’ve not come across a single holier-than-thou vegetarian yet. They are kindly folks. (Sincerely hope I fall in this category.) Maybe you are reading tones of your perception into rhetoric and such? E.g. this post is a kindly cartoon picture, but it urged you to write words like ‘self-righteous’ and ‘banging the morality drum’. Frankly, quite little taken aback, because I can’t see anything bad with not treating cows like milk machines and chickens as egg machines… Just for your consideration. But of course, it’s my deluded perception at play too, according to your explanation. May all beings big and small be well and happy.

W: L’s logic has flaws. As mentioned before, there’s no perfect diet yet. We know it’s not okay for insects to die for human. If there’s a way to avoid killing the insects we would, just like the way we avoid meat. Just because we can’t avoid killing insects so it’s good to eat meat? That just don’t make sense. I have no idea where u get the holier-than-thou statements and moral superiority? Just because we advocate a kinder diet doesn’t mean we are holier or morally superior. It’s really just choice and nothing else.

L: I can also say that there are non-vegetarians who can be just as kind or compassionate as your vegetarian friends. My inference of the cartoon is that those who eat cows and chicken are not respectful of mothers. It’s strongly implied, isn’t it? Furthermore, you can quote “facts”, but there is also a lot of research which indicates that the cost of a vegetarian lifestyle is tremendous damage to the environment. I don’t feel like trading links. You can Google ‘Vegetarianism Damages Environment’. There is a lot of information there. [Not true] Btw, the assertion that vegetarians are less greedy and delusional is quintessential self-righteousness. One swallow does not make a summer. To take one aspect of a person’s life (dietary preference) and judge that life as being less compassionate/more delusional is simplistic.

S: Yes indeed, of course, there are kind non-vegetarians too. It’s also wonderful to be kind vegans. I hope to be a kinder vegan, who is mindful of more sentient beings. Your inference is interesting. From United Nations’ Food & Agriculture Organisation’s report: Livestock a major threat to environment:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html Have never come across any vegan who judges anyone to be compassionate/delusional on the whole based only on diet. That would be delusional and self-righteous indeed. However, for informed vegans, they are indeed less greedy and delusional, as mentioned, in those aspects; not necessarily other aspects of life. On the other hand, there are self-righteous meat-eaters, but let’s not go into that. May all beings be well and happy, and may all tread the path of least harm.

L: Vegetarianism can also be a major threat to the environment too. So it really works both ways. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219223/Becoming-vegetarian-can-harm-the-environment.html And the above linked study was commisioned by the WWF, not the meat industry. ‎’But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.’ http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 ‎’The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.; http://lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

S: From the Telegraph article, the study claims that some meat substitutes are less green if imported into Britain from elsewhere. This means it is not necessarily less green if there is less importing. Many meats are imported to many countries, including Singapore, which in this sense makes it even less green, and with more killing. (Recall genocide times 10 or more.) The study seems lopsided in not calculating the feed needed for the meat animals, which is as above, 10 times or more, thus requiring that amount of land. The study is based ONLY on UK’s context. If highly processed meat substitutes require more energy, we should consume less processed food – including process meat. (Me going towards less processed vegan food.)

As the article says, ‘Simply eating more bread, pasta and potatoes instead of meat is more environmentally friendly… Lord Stern of Bradford, the climate change economist, claimed last October that a vegetarian diet was beneficial to the planet. He told a newspaper: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.: Liz O’Neill, spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, told The Times: “The figures used in the report are based on a number of questionable assumptions about how vegetarians balance their diet and how the food industry might respond to increased demand. If you’re aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian then it’s obviously not a good idea to rely on highly processed products, but that doesn’t undermine the fact that the livestock industry causes enormous damage.’

Review of Lierre Keith’s inadequate book by a vegan PhD doctor : http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/review-of-the-vegetarian-myth.html : ‘It’s next to impossible to review this book; it is so packed with misinformation and confusion that refuting the claims could be another book itself.’ UN’s FAO or Lierre Keith? Hmmmm… UN any time. Unfortunately, as am an untrained scientist, I have to take a side. May all make peace with their choices of diet, while being as mindful as they can on these as food for thought (pun intended): http://www.moonpointer.com/vege/10.htm May all beings be well and happy.

There is an updated pro-vegan WWF article – ‘New WWF Report Recommends Lowering Meat and Dairy Consumption’: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/new-wwf-report-recommends-lowering-meat-and-dairy-consumption

L: I think we have both stated our cases robustly and I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Whether vegan or not, the world is big enough to accomodate people of different persuasions.

S: On the Oz article, here is why it is inadequate:

(1) ‘It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans.’

(2) Would like to know good estimated figures for how many insects (not just bigger animals) killed for crops to create per kilo of useable protein as meat worldwide (not just based in Oz). This is neglected because most studies don’t exactly see insects as sentient beings significant enough to quantify. This number is likely to be much much more than if humans consume crops directly, instead of, as in (1), feeding 10 parts to meat animals to create just 1 part.

(3) Sadly, agriculture to produce crops in terms of clearing new land can lead to deaths of some bigger animals, but such deaths is one-time per plot of land cleared and fenced properly. This is versus currently INCREASING land cleared today for grazing and planting crops only for fattening animals for meat-eaters. Mono-culture is of course not a good idea. Vegans don’t demand it. In fact, crop rotation is wonderful for balanced nutrition. Use of pesticides is a problem, which is why organic produce should be encouraged in production and consumption, challenging as it is.

(4) The article is in the context of Oz only, where, if true, as it says, ‘Australian cattle eat mostly pasture’ but cattle elsewhere live tortured lives as milk, meat and leather machines in congested farm factories before slaughter. See www.meat.org for what this is like. If Oz lacks grain, import is a solution, though there are green issues too, as with everything we do. Careful calculation should be done to minimise harm. In Singapore, almost every food is imported, meat or not. The Oz context definitely does not apply to Singapore totally, if even closely enough.

(5) The Buddhist rationale for going vegan is sixfold, as in the earlier link, not just in terms of environmentalism. Until the day that it is proven that to be vegan in Singapore is against those six reasons, me will stay off eating animals and using animal produce.

No worries, no offence la :-] May all beings be well and happy. Amituofo

W: Refutation of Mike Archer’s article (Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands) – by Matthew Steven at http://joannasteven.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-meat-diet-less-bloody-than.html (If anyone have any comments on the below refutation, please click the above link, I would think Matthew Steven or his wife would be a better person to further comment.):

‘Mike Archer drops the provocative idea that going vegetarian will result in a net increase in animal deaths. This isn’t an environmental argument, because it’s impossible to make an environmental argument in favor of cattle production when you consider all aspects of production. Early on, his claim submits that nearly all cattle in Australia feed “solely on pasture” and for his argument to hold water, it must also be true that virtually none of the existing cattle pasture could be used as cropland or forage for human foods. Unlikely.

Before I get much further along on this, I should point out that this statistic does not apply to America or other countries where the majority of cattle are feedlot-fed rendering his argument irrelevant to the greater meat-consuming world. I aso have a strong hunch that it’s not really true, because later in his article he contradicts that assertion quite a bit, saying “In Australia 70% of the beef produced for human consumption comes from animals raised on grazing lands with very little or no grain supplements.” Later, he reinforces that, saying “Two-thirds of cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture.” So what about the other 30%?

We can only draw the conclusion that they are produced outside grazing lands. In other words, on agricultural land. So, by simple math, less than 10% of that remaining 30% must be farmland, or his whole efficiency premise falls apart. Here’s why: If 30% of beef production on agricultural land is converted to grain production, based on the most conservative grain:beef efficiency ratios (I use 10:1, when some experts claim it’s as bad as 16:1) you will have at least ten times more (aka 1000%) usable food from that 30%. In other words, the “more food from the same land” argument made by vegetarians holds. I’ve never seen cows on anything but farmland or rangeland. Draw your own conclusions. I think that this says it’s totally possible for those who choose the vegetarian option to take cattle out of arable land and produce ten times the grain-based foods from the same land. So much for the logic of Archer’s argument.

Now, some would argue at this point that beef and grain are not equal because one has a higher protein ratio. But they are more equal than he thinks because human bodies require more than just protein, and indeed Australians already consume far more protein than they need.

Whichever of Archer’s statistics you choose, the fact is that cattle still require a lot of resources that come from the environment, including arable land, which could be more efficiently used for other things. Not to mention medications, fuel for transport, and the comforts and necessities of the humans who have to look after roaming herds. And since he’s framed his argument solely in terms of the number of animals dying, he gets to happily ignore the CO2 and methane emissions from cattle which are a surprisingly big factor in global warming.

Still, the largest problem with this argument is that it equates the natural death of a mouse, grasshopper, and worm in their natural environment and often to natural predators or illnesses with the premature and premeditated death of a large mammal. All of his cute facts about mice doesn’t change the fact that they live in freedom, and that their death is no more the result of a direct action by a human than the bug being snapped up by a bird is. Or an insect on a blade of grass being eaten by a ranging cow, or being trod upon, which he seems to have failed to account for.

Cows, by contrast, die by traveling at mind-boggling speeds (to a cow) in great discomfort on a filthy truck, being shoved down a ramp with other terrified and sometime screaming animals, followed by electrocution, a gunshot, or throat slice as it’s forced into a slaughterhouse where it will be hung up and sliced and diced. Few animals can match our “humanity” in efficient killing.

So, if you prefer to ignore the environmental cost of beef production, and you choose to eat beef based on population statistics of agricultural-related deaths of insects and other small life forms alone, this argument might make sense. Oh, and don’t forget, it only holds if you’re in Australia.’

From ‘The Avengers’ movie:

Steve Rogers: Doc… I think now is the perfect time for you to get angry. 
Bruce Banner: That’s my secret, Cap[tain America], I’m always angry.

Cap was suggesting Banner to transform into the Hulk there and then to help save the day. Right after Banner says the above, he immediately morphs into the Hulk. It is as if he has been constantly suppressing his rage all along, which also means he can let it loose at any time. Now, the tricky thing is, Banner looked incredibly calm most of the time. How then, could he be angry all the time? He must be in great control! Suppression incidentally does not dissolve rage, which is what Banner should do if he really wishes to uproot his anger problem. The cultivation of the opposite quality of loving-kindness is the cure.

But if he keeps his angry in control, it is no longer anger, because we can only have one thought in each moment. Where there is calm, there is no rage; where there is rage, there is no calm. Alas! This is a logical error in the script! Something else interesting to note is that rage is useful only when it is transformed to energy with mindfulness, and for there to be mindfulness, there must be calmness. In this sense, the assumed unbridled rage of Hulk cannot actually be skilful. This I have to say, much of a Hulk fan as I am!

Related Articles:
http://moonpointer.com/new/index.php?s=hulk

A surprise email arrived on a mediation case between two people I helped some time ago. Here is my abridged reply:

My apologies for any perceived and actual misgivings from my side. Reflecting on this, I sincerely believe I did the best I could back then to help, foolish and inadequate as I surely was. I remember the discussion was in good spirit from your side too. There was ample opportunity for raising any matters of concern.

Unfortunately, it turns out that there is resentment nursed all along on your side, that was not expressed. I wish you were more forthright instead back then, with open communication, to save yourself from needless suffering. This is part of proper and deep communication.

I sincerely hope you remember her kindness, over her misgivings. People are always more kind to us than we tend to remember or even know. Please see this article: http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2011/12/do-you-see-the-invisible-bodhisattvas-in-your-life on what I mean. Please read this it with deep mindfulness and loving-kindness.

There are many invisible ‘Bodhisattvas’ in our lives doing their best for us, and the ones most misunderstood are the ones we assume to simply be inadequate people around us, even if they are indeed still inadequate. May we be better Bodhisattvas to one another. May all be well and happy always. Amituofo

Advice to a Dharma student:

If you don’t stick to a proper practice group with continual learning and guidance, these problems (which you just faced) of encountering deviated teachings via your random exploration are likely to recur. This is a reason why the Buddha clearly taught that spiritual friendship is the WHOLE of the path.

There is no soul, as in an unchanging mental entity.
If it is there, why did we change to be the way we are?
If it is there, how can we change to be better?

There is however, Buddha-nature -
the potential to become enlightened,
perfect in compassion and wisdom.

At a Buddhist temple, there were prayers… that ended with the wish for all beings to be well and happy. This is followed by the emcee announcing that they are organising a charity dinner, that it includes two special tables, catered for vegetarians.

Wow! Amazing stuff… when, with the mouthing of wishing all beings to be well and happy, there is immediate unmindfulness that the animals to be killed and consumed are some of these ‘all beings’ too.

Amazing indeed, that the minority of the food catered is vegetarian, and that this is seen as special, and not the encouraged norm. The kinder diet is but a secondary thought, an afterthought? What incredible lack of sensitivity. Is it serious negligence of compassion or attachment to meat at play amongst the management and devotees? How true can charity be in the name of feasting on animals?

“Hundreds of thousands of baby male chicks are either ground up alive or discarded like trash to die more slowly, piled by the hundreds, even thousands, on top of one another in bins every single day in order to satiate the egg and chicken-meat industry. The majority of male chicks are basically useless to both industries, so they are considered to be “trash”. I can not tell you how hard I’ve cried watching documentary video of countless live baby chicks, freezing to death in garbage bins out in the winter cold. So, which is the more brutal scenario? Is there a more brutal scenario?”

~ Anthony Damiano,
on the realities caused by the consumption of chicken-based products

This is more or less standard practice. We have the power to lessen this – by reducing consumption and thus demand for animal produce. Becoming vegetarian is just half of the picture. Veganism is to go the full mile! Let’s stretch ourselves ethically as far as we can for the welfare of all sentient beings.

Related Video: http://mercyforanimals.org/hatchery
Related Article: http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2009/10/is-ignorance-really-bliss

C: A young lady came looking for a job in a Buddhist organisation. Do you happen to know of any?

S: Hmmm…. nothing on my list at the moment, but she might like to subscribe to www.TheDailyEnlightenment.com to look out at the Notices section. Also, she might want to try an unconventional method, which is what I did in 1997 – write in to major Buddhist organisations uninvited to express eagerness to do Dharma work. :-] Amituofo

Those we encounter,
are seldom
totally good or evil.

If so, we choose
to have gratitude for their goodness
or to bear grudges against their evil.

The first rewards oneself.
The latter punishes oneself.
Do choose wisely!

A Tit for a Tat (358)

Tit: Can you decide what to have for dinner?
Tat: You decide!
Tit: Can’t you be more assertive?!
Tat: I am being assertive. I insist that you decide!

Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/heavy-rain
About aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/02/logo-for-a-tit-for-a-tat-series

The aT4aT series will be featured in the first volume of 
‘The Amazing & Amusing Adventures of Sam & Sara’ soon,
as a comic book with previously unseen commentary!
(Tit & Tat are renamed as Sam & Sara in the book – think SamSara!)
To keep tabs of its launch, do email moonpointer <at> gmail.com to be informed.

A Tit for a Tat (357)

Tat: If you can hear the rain, it’s heavy rain.
Tit: I can hear it, but it doesn’t look very heavy!
Tat: Okay… only if you hear it raining loudly, is it heavy rain!
Tit: I can hear it loudly, but it doesn’t look very heavy!
Tat: Okay… if it already looks heavy, it already is!

Next aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/being-assertive
Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2012/04/mindful-eating
About aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/02/logo-for-a-tit-for-a-tat-series

The aT4aT series will be featured in the first volume of 
‘The Amazing & Amusing Adventures of Sam & Sara’ soon,
as a comic book with previously unseen commentary!
(Tit & Tat are renamed as Sam & Sara in the book – think SamSara!)
To keep tabs of its launch, do email moonpointer <at> gmail.com to be informed.