On Mon, 8 May 2000 09:15:15 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It's certainly not absurd ... trying to be ethical and avoiding suffering
>is never absurd.
>
>But it is certainly arbitrary in its manifestation.
>

Arbitrary? Then so what?
Does that mean:
"there's no real definition of the problem - then there is no
  reason to do something about it"?
 or
"We don't really know what suffering is, so it's no problem what happens
to cows"?
I suppose that you *can* recognise when a cow is suffering.
Are you looking for a proof?

>...
>Interestingly, the Tibetan Buddhists eat meat, and the principle they cite
>is that just as many creatures are killed in agriculture - no matter how
>careful one is to avoid that.

I haven't heard about *this* argument yet.
But what does that mean if in the common western meat production about
10 times as much agricultural area is used, feeding one person
from meat than directly from crops? 10-fold bugs?

>   So, instead they simply pray that the sustenance they receive enable
them to do good works.

I'm reading much about Tibetan Buddhism.
They do eat meat (even the Dalai Lama does or did) - but should not kill
(or cause any other harm to) any living beeing.
Because any such action will come back to the one causing it as bad luck or
misfortune or own suffering in the present or next life (bad karma).
In the consequence, in past times they relied on animals
which died per accident (ref "The Third Eye" by Lobsang Rampa).
Or "by accident" killed by a moslem butcher (but not ordered!).
So, the butcher has to bear it all (the karma).

This is a compromise, of course.
Among all other actions, like building a headquarter,
driving a car, wearing a fur, some suffering will be caused.
To be equaled out by prayers or good actions, as you mention.

Just food is a little more intimate.

Amadeus S.