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.

Read more

There is an interesting pro-vegetarian article (28.01.12) titled ‘Why Buddhists Should Be Vegetarian’ at http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian-with-extra-cute It comes from a Theravada monk, as a pleasant surprise. Not everything in the article is agreeable though. This particular set of comments interest me:

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)

Read more

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.