Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra, Excerpt Fifty-three
January 18, 2013 
Only in this world are there little good and plenty of evil. What people drink is suffering and what they eat is poison. There is no peace or ending.
“This world” refers to the Saha world. An evil world of the Five Corruptions—this is what our present society is. In today’s society, there is little good and a lot of evil. Everyone can see this.
“What people drink is suffering and what they eat is poison. There is no peace or ending.” Food is essential to us ordinary beings in the Six Paths. But what are we consuming today? Suffering and poison.
Great Master Yinguang earnestly urged us to maintain a vegetarian diet. Why?
Generally when people are angry, their sweat is poisonous. Therefore, anger and hatred are poisons. When anger or hatred arises, every part of the body is filled with poisonous liquid. In the past, there was a woman who breast-fed her baby when she was angry. The baby died after a few days, poisoned by the milk.
Let’s look at animals. When an animal is being killed by a human, would it be very happy about it? No. It is just that the animal is unable to resist! In addition, with extreme anger, how can it not become poisonous? Therefore, when one eats meat over a long period of time, poison will accumulate in one’s body. When the poison takes effect, one will have strange diseases. As it is said, “Illness enters through the mouth.” If we wish for good health and longevity, we should start to have a vegetarian diet. This is very important. Frankly, there are also toxins in vegetarian food: there are pesticides in vegetables. But a vegetarian diet is still better than a meat diet because it is less toxic.
~ Essence of the Infinite Life Sutra by Venerable Master Chin Kung
Reader Comments (6)
Unfortunately, the typical Western ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is morally indistinguishable from an omnivorous diet, since production of eggs and dairy, whether factory farmed or "free range", involves torture and killing. From a moral point of view, it would be better to eat meat than dairy because dairy cows arguably suffer more than their beef counterparts during their lives, since they are kept alive longer and tortured more, physically and emotionally, and end up in the same slaughterhouse to become beef, ultimately. Once their ability to produce milk is finished, after only a few years of life, they will be killed for beef. Male calves are useless for producing milk so are killed at birth or killed as infants for veal.
However, I'm not arguing here that people should eat meat! I'm pointing out that, to the extent that vegetarians maintain consumption of eggs and dairy, they may be causing more suffering and killing of animals than if they were meat-eaters. This may be an inconvenient truth but it is true, nonetheless. This article is worth reading, especially in relation to eggs:
Why a Vegetarian Might Kill More Animals Than an Omnivore:
http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/
Also worth reading:
What Is Wrong With Vegetarianism?
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/what-is-wrong-with-vegetarianism/
Veganism, or "total vegetarianism", is the only practice that makes any sense if we want to avoid supporting torture and killing of animals. There is no need to go vegetarian as a step to becoming vegan. Indeed, it's meaningless to talk about vegetarianism as a "step" to veganism since it may involve even more harm and death to animals than being an omnivore, to the extent that one replaces meat with dairy and eggs.
We should always set the goal as being veganism and should not endorse vegetarianism, because in doing so we are endorsing torture and killing of animals. If for some reason people feel that they can't go vegan immediately, they can do it in an incremental way. That is, they can go vegan for breakfast first, while still eating their usual meals for lunch and dinner. When they feel comfortable with that, they can go vegan for lunch, and then, eventually, dinner and snacks. In this way, everyone can proceed at a pace that is manageable for them. The important thing is that we are working towards a goal that is meaningful in terms of eliminating participation in animal exploitation and murder and not deluding ourselves that ovo-lacto vegetarianism is morally and spiritually better than meat-eating.
Another article that's relevant:
Vegetarianism First?
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/the-vegan-2010spring.pdf
But whether meat is more toxic than milk, eggs or plants is only important to the question of our own health. It ignores the most important reason for avoiding meat and other animal products, which is the exploitation of animals. Animals pay with their lives, regardless of whether we consume meat, milk or eggs. So if we consider that the most important reason to avoid meat is the moral one, then we are also committed to avoiding all other animal products. A vegan diet is the healthiest diet of all, as well as being the best diet for lessening greenhouse gases and environmental damage.
Telling someone they need to become vegans, not vegetarians, could discourage some people and lead them to give up altogether. People have different conditions. As Buddhists, we understand this and encourage people to keep striving to do the best they can and keep working at improving.
I understand that some people, even if they wish to avoid supporting torture and killing of animals, would find it difficult to go from an omnivorous diet to veganism overnight. But that's not what I'm suggesting. Yes, some are able to do that. But for those who feel they can't, what is discouraging about the idea of taking the process as slowly as they feel they can manage? Even if it takes a year, two years, or more, at least the end goal is meaningful, if the goal is indeed to avoid harm to other sentient beings. No-one is judging anyone in terms of the time taken to make the transition.
What I'm confused about is why you think it's a good thing to encourage people to become vegetarians (meaning ovo-lacto vegetarian, as is commonly understood by that term) when this does nothing to avoid harm to other sentient beings and arguably causes even more harm, given that dairy involves more suffering than meat, and eggs involve more killing than meat.
My understanding is that ahimsa is the reason for making a change in diet, as a Buddhist. Why encourage a change that is meaningless in terms if ahimsa? People might feel better about themselves, but that should not be the goal, especially if it's not based on any reality about actually doing better in terms of impact on other sentient beings. Indeed, it would be better to give up eggs and dairy rather than meat, if we weigh the consequences in terms of harm.
It is being increasingly recognised that veganism is the only practice that makes any sense in terms of non-harm to animals. The Western lacto-ovo vegetarian diet is totally discredited as a coherent moral solution to animal suffering and death. I understand that people have different conditions and that we should encourage them to do the best they can and keep on improving. But how is misleading them that an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is any better than a meat-based diet helping them to do the best they can? It's encouraging them to make an arbitrary change that really achieves nothing. One might as well say that one should only eat meat from spotted cows and avoid meat from non-spotted cows. If people are going to bother to make a change in good faith that what they are doing counts as a meaningful act in terms of ahimsa, then we have a responsibility to at least not mislead them about the facts of what they are doing. I know I would not appreciate that myself. I would want to be told the truth so that I could make my own mind up about what is the best thing to do and not have it assumed that I'm too weak, self-indulgent or stupid to be able to weigh the facts and make a meaningful choice. I certainly wouldn't want to be misled that being a vegetarian constitutes a meaningful change.
Why not explain that the traditional Chinese "vegetarian" diet did not include eggs or dairy and was actually much closer to what we now call a vegan diet? And that this is the goal to move towards, at a pace determined by the person themselves? After all, most people would not find it difficult to go vegan for breakfast. Many people are already vegan for breakfast without even thinking of it that way. So they are already one third of the way there.
I don't think it helps to exaggerate the difficulty of going vegan. Yes, it requires some effort, but what is there in life that's worth doing that doesn't require *some* effort? The fact is that with all the meat and dairy substitutes now available it is easier than ever to make the transition. I think our time is spent more productively helping people to go vegan at a pace that suits them, rather than misrepresenting veganism as being more difficult than it is, or misleading them to think that ovo-lacto vegetarianism achieves anything at all in terms of avoiding harm to animals -- it doesn't, and that is simply a fact. To the extent that people replace meat with dairy and eggs, and nearly all vegetarians do -- they are causing *more* harm to animals, not less. This may be hard for some to hear, but it remains a fact. I know -- I was vegetarian for 25 years before becoming vegan and thought I was doing the right thing. But when I found out the truth, I saw no option but to change to veganism.
It's patronising and elitist to assume that people can't handle the truth, or that they are too lazy and self-indulgent to act on it. We owe it to them to treat them as responsible and self-determing adults by telling them the truth and letting them make up their own minds. If they choose to go vegetarian, or just cut down on meat, we accept that, but at least we know we've presented them with a truthful picture and a meaningful option.
Some of us actually *want* to do the right thing by animals and appreciate being given a truthful picture and presented with a meaningful goal -- veganism -- and not being led up the garden path regarding vegetarianism. I only wish that someone had told me the truth about these things when I was younger and became a vegetarian. I know that if someone had done so, and presented the case for veganism, I would have elected to become vegan at that time. I really regret all the years being in the dark about this. We owe it to people to give them the choice, based on truth and facts. Why present ovo-lacto vegetarianism as a meaningful option when we know it is not?
If you do think it's a meaningful option, I'd like to hear why, because I see no evidence for it at all. To advocate that people do something that causes more harm as an alternative, rather than less harm, when our goal is to minimise harm, is really confused thinking and counterproductive.
Amituofo
Thank you for speaking about veganism in Awaken to the Buddha Within.
This is a short comment called "Blessing Exploitation" by Professor Gary Francione:
"If you promote being a “conscientious omnivore” as the “compassionate” choice, guess what? People will continue to eat animal products. They will continue to participate directly in animal exploitation and see nothing wrong with it. After all, the “experts,” the “animal rights” people have blessed their consumption of animal products.
If you promote vegetarianism as the “compassionate” choice, you are giving people the green light to consume dairy and other animal products. You are telling them that they are being “compassionate” as long as they only consume some animal products. That explains why we all know many vegetarians who have never gone vegan. Why should they when they are being told by the self-appointed experts that they have discharged their moral obligations to animals by being vegetarian? Why should they change if “animal rights” groups have told them they are being “compassionate”?
If you regard animals as members of the moral community, you stop consuming them. Period. Its not a matter of “happy” exploitation; it’s not a matter of exploiting them for some animal products but not for others. It’s a matter of no consumption; no use. All animal products, whatever they are and however “humane” are the products of torture and exploitation.
If you are not a vegan, go vegan. It’s easy, better for your health and the environment, and, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do".