Is vegetarianism a must?

• Ongsoosiang

  23 Apr 08, 17:51

  All Buddhists should be vegetarians.Is it true?Because I read a prc buddhist forum and was angered about it.Amituofo.

• Isis

  23 Apr 08, 17:56

  oh oh  watch your anger...

  For ur information, it is not true.

• An Eternal Now

  23 Apr 08, 18:10

  http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no4a.htm

   

  Volume 5 no 4

  Feature

  Five Clean Sources of Meat

  Many people firmly recognise that the Buddha's teachings are full, subtle, comprehensive and profound. They recognise and revere the truth of the Buddha-dharma as soon as they encounter it. However, they face a common dilemma: they hesitate to take refuge in the Three Treasures because they do not wish to be vegetarians. For this reason, some ponder at the gate of Buddhism for a long time and are afraid to take that step forward. Others arrive at the crossroad of religion, some took the wrong turn and ended up with some cults or unorthodox ways. They do not realise that it is not easy to be born a human, and it is even harder to have the opportunity to encounter the Buddha-dharma. Having been born a human, it is indeed a waste of opportunity not to embrace Buddhism as it knocks at our door.

  The Buddha-dharma is infinite and there are in reality more than 84,000 Dharma doors, or methods by which we can embark to learn and practise Buddhism. Vegetarianism is just one of the many methods. To refrain from killing is merely a means of assisting us to progress in our cultivation. As a medicine, meat is permitted in the Buddhist precepts if it is required to cure a particular sickness. Buddhism cherishes compassion. However, killing and causing harm to life have their retributions. The world has no peace as victims and villains engage in a vicious cycle of vengeance and revenge, culminating in calamities and disasters, and inflicting suffering and misery across the world. Buddha understands the ignorance and habits of sentient beings that have accumulated from aeons of their many past lives. In order to provide sentient beings with an expedient means of embracing Buddhism, those who are not able to convert to a vegetarian diet on a long term basis are permitted to consume meat provided: (1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally (2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter (3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake (4) That he did not witness the slaughter (5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter To refrain from killing is fundamental to Buddhism. Regardless of life forms, we must not kill, we must not instruct others to kill, and it must not be killed for our sake, for example, to celebrate our birthday or because we were coming to dinner. These are three sources of clean meat. In Confucianism, benevolence also means to refrain from killing. It is said that heaven has the virtue of loving life. It cannot bear to witness the loss of life, let alone eat the flesh of those whose cries in death we have heard. Buddhism advocates compassion and loving-kindness to all sentient beings, regardless of their relation to you. It is only appropriate that we do not kill for our livelihood or for the purpose of celebrating occasions, such as births, birthdays, funerals or weddings. Meats are no different from the other foodstuffs purchased from the market if people do not witness the killing or hear the cries of the animal that is being slaughtered. If a differentiation between the two kinds of purchases and the taste of the meat do not exist in the mind, then the guilt is lighter. Together with the three mentioned earlier, these constitute the five sources of clean meat. Meat eating however is a pre-condition to killing. If people refrain from eating meat, there will be no killing of animals for meat. Sadly, the human race has committed killings for aeons and is engaged in an endless cycle of vengeance and revenge over their past lives. For one who is slaughtered for meat in this life, it is probably because he had done the same to others in the past. The score is even, no more and no less. People who eat meat from the five clean sources are advised to learn to chant the Buddha's name and the Buddhist mantras, so as to transfer the merits to those whose meat they are eating. They should also wish them an early rebirth in the human realm, to eliminate any thoughts of vengeance, to nurture their virtuous roots to benefit all sentient beings and together build a peaceful, caring and blissful pure land in this world. Only when this is promoted across the entire world, will we be able to eliminate hatred and vengeance, and enhance a mind of compassion and loving kindness. In this way we will be able to transform this Saha world into a pure land.

  © Copyright 2002.Jen Chen Buddhism Centre Designed by DCS Solutions Ltd

• rokkie

  25 Apr 08, 15:24

  i cannot take it anyway.not ture for me

• justdoit77

  26 Apr 08, 08:51

  Buddhist should be vegetarian, but vegetarianism is not a must.

  I agree with what Isis said "watch your anger", we should watch our anger, but it is not a must.

• Bodhi hut

  26 Apr 08, 12:11

  extracted

   

  Vegetarian diet.

  Some people misperceived that one who practices Buddhism must be a vegetarian. So people who cannot stop eating meat misunderstood that they are not ready to learn Buddhism. Please do not think that one must be a vegetarian in order to learn the Dharma. To practice Buddhism and be a vegetarian are two separate issues. To those compassionate Buddhists, vegetarian diet is just a way of manifesting one’s compassion to sentient beings only. And this issue shouldn’t deter others who are non-vegetarians from learning the Dharma. We can take meat if it falls under the 3 conditions as stated below:

   

  1. if the animal is not especially killed for us
  2. if we do not see the animals dying
  3. if we do not hear the animals screaming

  Theravada and tibetan buddhism they do take meat, Mahayana buddhism they do not take meat...It is not a must, but by being a vegetarian it is a shown of compassionate act.

• gunner77

  26 Apr 08, 13:10

  i would like to clarify something

  (4) That he did not witness the slaughter

  lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

  then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

  if u say yes, then they cut it, is tis consider as witness the slaughter ?

   

• eagle

  26 Apr 08, 13:13

  According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

  Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

  (2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
  (3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

  He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

  and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

• An Eternal Now

  26 Apr 08, 13:51

  Originally posted by gunner77:

  i would like to clarify something

  (4) That he did not witness the slaughter

  lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

  then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

  if u say yes, then they cut it, is tis consider as witness the slaughter ?

   

  No, the chicken is already dead.

  Frozen meat is not against the 5 clean meat, but ordering seafood at restaurants is not really '5 clean meat' if you order the seafood because you know they'll slaughter for you.

• An Eternal Now

  26 Apr 08, 13:52

  Originally posted by eagle:

  According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

  Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

  (2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
  (3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

  He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

  and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

  The karma of indirect killing is still less than the karma of direct killing or ordering to kill while the animal is still alive.

  Nevertheless the most compassionate thing to do is to stop eating all meat. That is Bodhisattva practice.

• gunner77

  26 Apr 08, 13:54

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  No, the chicken is already dead.

  Frozen meat is not against the 5 clean meat, but ordering seafood at restaurants is not really '5 clean meat' if you order the seafood because you know they'll slaughter for you.

  
  thanks !

  today went to market then buy chicken saw they cut it

  immediately tink of tis thread

  at least now can eat at ease

• yamizi

  26 Apr 08, 14:42

  Originally posted by eagle:

  According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

  Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

  (2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
  (3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

  He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

  and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

  Wah Cause and Effect like that ah?

  Then every moment while you're alive, the butcher will think that you want to eat the meat and still carry on killing for your sake!

  You very sinful to be alived leh, every single moment you're involved with indirect killing!

• eagle

  26 Apr 08, 14:45

  no la... I replying to gunner77 mah... this part only

  lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

  then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

  if u say yes, then they cut it

  But even with eating chickens, you are causing demands, which is still karma (indirect killing), although this karma (as mentioned) is less than the karma of direct killing.

• An Eternal Now

  26 Apr 08, 14:55

  Actually, frozen meat doesnt 'invoke' (2) or (3). It only refers to personally having demaded the killing. Frozen meat is 'indirect' so the karma is generally lighter.

• gunner77

  26 Apr 08, 15:15

  vesak day coming

  19th may

• yamizi

  27 Apr 08, 19:42

  Originally posted by eagle:

  no la... I replying to gunner77 mah... this part only

  But even with eating chickens, you are causing demands, which is still karma (indirect killing), although this karma (as mentioned) is less than the karma of direct killing.

  The thing is, whether you demand or not, you're part of the demand. You think in the poultry industry, they will find out who likes to eat meat and who do not like to eat meat?

  The society at large as a whole, in their point of view is the demand, and you're part of it, whether you demand or not.

  That's why indirect killing in eating meat has a weak argument in the chain of kamma. However it is so prevalent nowadays.

  Action and/or speech with intention create kamma. Basic stuff. Indirect kamma's idea is a developed much latter with the influence (which I suspect) of Jainism. That's why after exam going Jain Temple to see look.

• An Eternal Now

  27 Apr 08, 20:17

  Originally posted by yamizi:

  The thing is, whether you demand or not, you're part of the demand. You think in the poultry industry, they will find out who likes to eat meat and who do not like to eat meat?

  The society at large as a whole, in their point of view is the demand, and you're part of it, whether you demand or not.

  That's why indirect killing in eating meat has a weak argument in the chain of kamma. However it is so prevalent nowadays.

  Action and/or speech with intention create kamma. Basic stuff. Indirect kamma's idea is a developed much latter with the influence (which I suspect) of Jainism. That's why after exam going Jain Temple to see look.

  In frozen meat, the karma of killing is not the same or direct as that of the one who is killing the animal himself because such a person is accumulating action karma of killing. Demanding the killing is also karma, like speech karma. That is why Buddha allowed meat on the 3 or 5 conditions in which you neither kill, demanded or witnessed the killing. The karma is generally lighter.

  Of course by eating or buying meat there is also karma but the karma is not the same as personally killing or causing the suffering of the animal. By eating or buying meat you are creating the karma for allowing the industry to thrive. By killing, you are creating the karma of killing. Thats my understanding.

• Isis

  28 Apr 08, 02:47

  The Buddha also disencourage monks from eating ten kinds of meat: horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard or is it panther or jaguar, bear, hyena, boar and oh yes human.

  Eh how about turtle ?

• JitKiat

  28 Apr 08, 07:48

  From Master Chin Kung:

   

  素食对于å�¥åº·å¤§æœ‰å¥½å¤„，特别是中年以å�Žã€‚中年以å�Žä¸�知é�“在饮食上摄生，对于你晚年身体å�¥åº·ä¼šæœ‰å¾ˆå¤§å½±å“�。这是从饮食起居，我们一般讲‘å�«ç”Ÿ’。世间人都懂得讲求å�«ç”Ÿï¼Œå�¯æ˜¯è¿˜æœ‰é‡�è¦�的，大家ç–�忽了，那是什么？å�«æ€§ã€‚‘性’是好的性情，它会影å“�生ç�†ã€‚所以伊斯兰教（回教）他们的饮食有很多规矩，有很多东西他们都ä¸�å�ƒçš„。我曾ç»�研究他们的教义，为什么ä¸�å�ƒï¼ŸåŽŸæ�¥é‚£äº›åŠ¨ç‰©æ€§æƒ…ä¸�好。凡是性情ä¸�好的动物ã€�æ¤�物，他都ä¸�å�ƒã€‚为什么？怕影å“�自己的性情。他懂得å�«æ€§ï¼Œä¿�护一个好的情绪，我们今天讲‘情绪’，这就比一般人高明。以å�Žï¼Œæˆ‘读佛ç»�，佛更高明，佛讲三æ�¡ï¼Œé™¤äº†è®²æ±‚å�«ç”Ÿã€�å�«æ€§ï¼Œè¿˜è®²æ±‚å�«å¿ƒï¼Œä¿�护自己的慈悲心，ä¿�护自己善良的心。所以，ä¸�食一切众生肉，这个有é�“ç�†åœ¨ã€‚

  ======

   

  今天的肉食，你請我�，我也�敢�。為什麼？肉有毒�能�。���修告訴我，��養的豬，六個月就被殺了，而且天天打�爾蒙，讓牠趕快長胖，�常�正常，所以豬�的是有毒的�西，肉怎麼會沒有毒？雞就更�能�了，因為牠六個星期就�被殺了，而且都是養在籠�裡�。我們想一想，如果一個人從出生就關到監牢�，養胖了�來殺，他是什麼心情？有怨�，怨�就是毒。�去家畜都是養在外�，沒有殺牠的時候，自由自在，生活得很快樂。�在�監牢，�天餵毒藥，那個肉能�嗎？�在人�肉食，得些奇奇怪怪的病，病從哪裡來的？「病從�入�。�在麻煩更大，連蔬�都有農藥，但畢竟比肉食�好得多，肉食裡有細�病毒，比素食高很多�。所以，我們想一想，為了自己身體�康，還是��擇素食。素食的人很�康，�比天天�肉食��補�的差，甚至於比他們�康。�讓他們知�素食�於�康長壽有真正的利益，用此方�來勸導人素食，就�了。

   

  ===

  凡是有生命的動物，被人抓到的時候，知�自己�被屠殺��被食噉，
  那種痛苦，我們從牠表情上能看到，垂頭喪氣，在裡��眼淚，
  那種��的狀�，與人有什麼兩樣？
  而人們真正是有眼沒有見到，有耳沒有�到，有心沒有感觸到，
  任�的宰殺，滿足自己的食慾，�冤造業無�於此。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  人慶長壽，殺害眾生來宴會；慶�自己的長壽，�人家短命，哪有這種��？於情於�都�背了。
  殺生造業來慶生，諸�想想看，這���情�？
  本來自己壽命很長，因為年年用這種方�慶生，�而把自己的壽命減�了。
  �但壽命減�，來生的苦報，跟這些眾生�的冤業，冤冤相報，沒完沒了。
  明眼人看得清楚，慶生�壽斷斷��以殺生。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  喪事�能殺生，祭祀也��殺生。
  你�一年殺生祭祀你的祖先，祭祀你�世的家親眷屬，
  亡人�但�能得�，�而加�罪業，增加他的苦報，
  因為都是為他而殺的，這是我們在世的活人無知。
  明瞭這些事�的真相，決定��心殺生祭祀。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  拜佛許願更��以殺生，
  諸佛�薩大慈大悲�救苦救難都來��，怎麼�以殺害眾生去祭祀佛�薩？
  
  ---------------------------
  
  ���知，�婚宴會也��以殺生，�則�是徒添往後婚姻生活的種種障礙。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  �說到營生，我們在社會必須�有正當的事業，
  凡是殺害眾生的事業，
  所得的利潤決�是因殺害眾生�得到這個利潤，你的財�是你�生修布施所得來的。
  如果你在這一生，從事的是殺害眾生的事業，雖然你��得富貴，生活�得很優裕，
  �是你�知�，
  你這個財��是因殺生而得來的，是你�世所修�的，無論你從事哪一個行業都會發財。
  
  殺害眾生生命的這種行業，把�世的�享盡了，惡報就��。
  我們很冷��很仔細的觀察，就知�這個�象，
  所以我們營生的行業�謹慎�擇，決定�能幹殺害眾生這種行業。
  這種行業�自己決定�利，往後的果報有得�了�
  
  ---------------------------
  
  �講到我們日常生活當中，奉養父�也��以殺生，素食的養分已經���盡了，何必�殺害眾生？
  如果你們以為素食沒有營養，仔細去看看出家人，�以增長你的信心，改變你的觀念。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  養病也��殺生，更應當愛護一切眾生的生命，我們自己�能得長壽，這是�康長壽之因。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  �教�法會用三牲祭神。
  我們替神明想想，「正直�明謂之神�，神還貪圖你血腥的祭祀來�佑你嗎？
  哪有這種���所以法會祭神�能殺生。
  
  ---------------------------
  
  世俗�年，家家都殺生，家家都�肉，尤其是殺生來祭祀祖先，實在講，也是加�祖先的罪業，
  祖先�但�能夠得�，還因而�難，這是我們錯誤觀念造�的。
  所以我們�年�到新年，�特別�倡素食，加�的愛護眾生。
  
  

   

   

• geforce

  28 Apr 08, 22:08

  can eat.

   

  :)

   

   

  both can.

• An Eternal Now

  28 Apr 08, 22:21

  What do you mean by "both"?

• An Eternal Now

  28 Apr 08, 23:18

  Someone messaged me this titled 'vegetarian' which I supposed is intended by the sender to justify meat eating in a Buddhist context:

  1 The Mahasiddha Luipa, The Fish-Gut Eater

   

  A wild dog with honey rubbed on its nose
  Madly devours whatever it sees;
  Give the Lama's secret to a worldly fool
  And his mind and the lineage burn out.
  For a responsive man with knowledge of unborn reality
  A mere glimpse of the Lama's vision of pure light-form,
  Destroys mental fiction like an elephant berserk
  Rampaging through hostile ranks with a sword lashed to its trunk.

   

   

  ...

  In which I replied:

  You did not read his story. This Maha Siddha eats only the parts of fish which were discarded by the fisherman -- i.e. the organs and lower part of the fish which nobody eats. He purposely ONLY eats fish-gut because he want to get rid of his dualistic preconception of attachment to eating 'pure stuff' or his attachment to only eating things conceived by his judgmental mind as more desirable than the other -- so eating fish gut becomes his practice of getting rid of his discrimination and attachment. His ultimate aim through eating disgusting things is to realise the One Taste (luminous-emptiness) nature of all appearances, which he achieved later on.

  But he is in this way not at all supporting the killing of fish, he only ate the unwanted discards left by the fishermen. On the other hand by eating and buying fish we are being the demand and indirect cause of the killing of the fish -- i.e. causing the industry to thrive.

  http://www.keithdowman.net/books/mm.htm

   

  For the rest of us, who are not even Maha Siddhas, the most appropriate thing is to become a wholehearted vegetarian and show compassion to all animals, and not think of excuses such as thinking one can dedicate merits or chant a mantra to elevate an animal's sufferings. That is only what Maha Siddhas can do, and even very enlightened people usually avoid doing that. We are not at that level to be able to deliver these sentient beings, so it is irresponsible for us to feed on a living being's body.

  The most important thing all Mahayana and Vajrayana is Bodhicitta. Without Bodhicitta, one cannot even be a true Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner. Developing compassion through avoiding meat is the first step. Lankavatara Sutra says that eating meat destroys the seed of compassion. If you are truly compassionate you will not be able to feed on an living being's body.

  Contrary to the Maha Siddha's story you gave above, which is that he is trying to overcome his attachment to preconceived dualistic notions of purity and impurity, the reason why we eat meat is certainly NOT because we want to "overcome the judgment and discrimination of purity", but because we are completely attached to the taste of sentient being's body. There is totally no other reasons why most of us would want to eat meat, other than to satisfy short term desire for the taste of a sentient being's body, which is due to a complete lack of compassion. Vegetarian diets are suitable and even healthier for most people out there, most of us are certainly not even eating meat for 'medicinal purposes'. So it is completely wrong to use the Maha Siddha's story out of context.

  I shall not say too much otherwise I will be hypocrite, because I am not full vegetarian yet. But I think being a vegetarian is certainly good to aspire for. I hope to become a vegetarian some day.

• cycle

  29 Apr 08, 16:11

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Someone messaged me this titled 'vegetarian' which I supposed is intended by the sender to justify meat eating in a Buddhist context:

  1 The Mahasiddha Luipa, The Fish-Gut Eater

   

  A wild dog with honey rubbed on its nose
  Madly devours whatever it sees;
  Give the Lama's secret to a worldly fool
  And his mind and the lineage burn out.
  For a responsive man with knowledge of unborn reality
  A mere glimpse of the Lama's vision of pure light-form,
  Destroys mental fiction like an elephant berserk
  Rampaging through hostile ranks with a sword lashed to its trunk.

   

   

  ...

  In which I replied:

  You did not read his story. This Maha Siddha eats only the parts of fish which were discarded by the fisherman -- i.e. the organs and lower part of the fish which nobody eats. He purposely ONLY eats fish-gut because he want to get rid of his dualistic preconception of attachment to eating 'pure stuff' or his attachment to only eating things conceived by his judgmental mind as more desirable than the other -- so eating fish gut becomes his practice of getting rid of his discrimination and attachment. His ultimate aim through eating disgusting things is to realise the One Taste (luminous-emptiness) nature of all appearances, which he achieved later on.

  But he is in this way not at all supporting the killing of fish, he only ate the unwanted discards left by the fishermen. On the other hand by eating and buying fish we are being the demand and indirect cause of the killing of the fish -- i.e. causing the industry to thrive.

  http://www.keithdowman.net/books/mm.htm

   

  For the rest of us, who are not even Maha Siddhas, the most appropriate thing is to become a wholehearted vegetarian and show compassion to all animals, and not think of excuses such as thinking one can dedicate merits or chant a mantra to elevate an animal's sufferings. That is only what Maha Siddhas can do, and even very enlightened people usually avoid doing that. We are not at that level to be able to deliver these sentient beings, so it is irresponsible for us to feed on a living being's body.

  The most important thing all Mahayana and Vajrayana is Bodhicitta. Without Bodhicitta, one cannot even be a true Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner. Developing compassion through avoiding meat is the first step. Lankavatara Sutra says that eating meat destroys the seed of compassion. If you are truly compassionate you will not be able to feed on an living being's body.

  Contrary to the Maha Siddha's story you gave above, which is that he is trying to overcome his attachment to preconceived dualistic notions of purity and impurity, the reason why we eat meat is certainly NOT because we want to "overcome the judgment and discrimination of purity", but because we are completely attached to the taste of sentient being's body. There is totally no other reasons why most of us would want to eat meat, other than to satisfy short term desire for the taste of a sentient being's body, which is due to a complete lack of compassion. Vegetarian diets are suitable and even healthier for most people out there, most of us are certainly not even eating meat for 'medicinal purposes'. So it is completely wrong to use the Maha Siddha's story out of context.

  I shall not say too much otherwise I will be hypocrite, because I am not full vegetarian yet. But I think being a vegetarian is certainly good to aspire for. I hope to become a vegetarian some day.

  
  So very well said.

  As buddhists we should try to eat less meat, even if it is not easy to give up such attachment to taste. Go slowly at your own pace, eat one piece/slice/chunk/portion less from your normal intake.

  And frankly speaking, it is actually not that difficult after a while. Anybody can do it.  I realise that after reducing meat consumption, our preference for taste changes; in which one may build a very natural instinct to avoid meat, as natural as one would avoid eating cow dung, or as in one would move away his hand when torched by a flame. This was my initial reaction towards meat, like a child who refuses to eat his greens, they just taste bad. And after some time of viualisation of where and how these meat of sentient beings became food on our dinning table, the feeling of compassion arises naturally. It is not easy to go back to consuming meat again.

   

  I think there are many ppl out there who feel the same, or have similar reactions as mine. It's just that they are afriad to say it for fear of being labelled a hypocrite or religion fanatics. 

• yamizi

  1 May 08, 09:28

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  In frozen meat, the karma of killing is not the same or direct as that of the one who is killing the animal himself because such a person is accumulating action karma of killing. Demanding the killing is also karma, like speech karma. That is why Buddha allowed meat on the 3 or 5 conditions in which you neither kill, demanded or witnessed the killing. The karma is generally lighter.

  Of course by eating or buying meat there is also karma but the karma is not the same as personally killing or causing the suffering of the animal. By eating or buying meat you are creating the karma for allowing the industry to thrive. By killing, you are creating the karma of killing. Thats my understanding.

  Obviously you don't get my point but it's okay.

• jinsei

  1 May 08, 09:56

  May be a bit off-topic here but becoming a vegetarian may help the environment by lowering greenhouse gases emission:

  http://www.healthythoughts.com/Eat%20Less%20Meat%20Cool%20the%20Planet.htm

  Besides that, as mentioned by cycle, some may feel a bit uncomfortable eating meat after knowing about what the farm animals have to go through...

  http://veg.ca/content/view/62/101/

   http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/animals.html

  The articles may be a bit outdated, any updated info to share?