vegetarianism part deux

As I mentioned in my last post, being a vegetarian isn't a requirement to being a Buddhist; however, does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no.

Any way you look at it, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that's been deliberately killed; but the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases. Fruits and vegetables aren't sentient beings, and harvesting them doesn't automatically entail the intentional killing of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it's conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate. In the case of meat, that's not the case. The animal must almost always be deliberately killed by someone.

It's true that purchasing meat from the grocery store doesn't entail the kamma of killing for the purchaser. I say this because the act of killing requires the intention to kill just as much as it does the actual taking of life. However, a well-informed practitioner should at least be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death, of course, but it's hard to argue against the fact that doing so would at least help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that's built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.

The way I see it, no source of food is 100% free from harming sentient beings, but the consumer does have the power to limit the amount of harm done. This can be achieved in many ways, e.g., not buying meat or at least buying meat from farmers and companies who treat their animals more humanely, buying eggs from farmers and companies who allow their hens to roam freely, buying produce from farmers and companies who don't use any pesticides, etc. So the consumer isn't powerless. They can have an effect on how many animals are killed, the manner of their deaths or how they're treated in general, not to mention the amount of pesticide-free produce that's sold, etc.

When going to the super market, for example, that particular store keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers cease buying meat, the demand for meat will go down and less animals will need to be killed in order to meet the demand. In addition, if the majority of consumers who do purchase meat and dairy products purchase them from farmers and companies who treat and kill the animals in a more humane fashion, other companies will naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. The same holds true for the kind of produce we buy. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple.

Essentially, all of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we as individuals wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It's a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable to them since they know that the animal has been killed by another person; but for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store. Therefore, while I think that in regard to the first precept the Buddha taught about personal responsibility in the form of regulating our own actions of body, speech and mind, that doesn't mean that we should simply turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Doesn't that also fall within the realm of personal responsibility?

Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism isn't a requirement, I do think it's at least a compassionate option that's in line with the Buddha's teachings on ahimsa. That's why even though there's nothing in Theravada which states this lifestyle choice is necessary or even preferred, I generally try to avoid buying meat or anything with meat in it when I go to the store, out to eat at a restaurant, etc.

Just to be clear, however, I'm not trying to demonize meat-eating or the meat industry because that's a pointless crusade. As I said, abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death; all living things must consume/feed in order to survive, and some are dangerous and survival instincts almost always trump compassion and empathy. There are worldly solutions to these problems, of course, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient being. In essence, there are no perfect solutions.

On top of that, condemning or demonizing another for their complicity means that we should also condemn and demonize ourselves as well. If we want to, we can find reasons to demonize anything, including internet usage. I doubt that most people are aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers, but one could reason that every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths. Shall we cease to use the internet then?