The basis of veganism is philosophy – a philosophy that believes it is possible to thrive without causing suffering to any sentient being, so you cannot so easily brush aside the philosophical aspect of your lifestyle.

One more thing; the Buddha was not omniscient but he came pretty close – at least to those of us who profess his faith. Can he be wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Even if the Buddha would say that every one of us is, strictly speaking, “no one”, he would agree that we sentient human and non-human animals can suffer. Plants cannot suffer. If you doubt that, take it up with scientists and philosophers. I think the Buddha was a wise and inspiring teacher, but he was not omniscient, and I wouldn’t blindly take his word about anything (nor would he want anyone to). A good place to start looking for the intersection of science and morality here might be the book Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism, by James Rachels. And you might find this book on the philosophical debate about the moral status of animals to be of interest too:
http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=951&cat=12&page=1
Cheers.

What is the definition of sentient life – and who gives you the right to define it that way? What about plants? Aren’t they alive and possibly sentient? If there is a line that separates animals, which should not be harmed, and plants which are fair game, who draws it? Obviously a line must be drawn otherwise our bodies suffer because we need to eat – and causing suffering even to our own bodies is still causing suffering. That’s a contradiction that Buddha himself realized after his own experiment with ascetism.

Speaking of the Buddha, whether or not he ate meat is a controversial question. According to various scriptural sources, he did eat meat as long as it met conditions including avoidance of meat from the following animals: humans, elephants and horses (considered royal animals at the time), dogs (considered disgusting by ordinary people), and snakes, lions, tigers, panthers, bears and hyenas (because the smell of the flesh would invite revenge by members of their species. Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebsut034.htm

Source: http://fwbo.org/articles/eat_meat.html

Buddha and his followers did eat meat so long as certain conditions were met. These conditions were that a monk should not have seen, heard, nor have any reason to suspect, that the meat was from an animal killed specifically for him. If these three conditions were met then the meat was said to be ‘blameless’.

What’s interesting is that according to these conditions, the Buddha could barbecue a steak from the grocery store because the cow was not killed specifically for him!

If you are comfortable pursuing a vegan lifestyle, more power to you. You have the liberty to not eat meat. Where the conflict between conservatives and vegans comes in is when the vegan lifestyle is forced upon non-vegans. As Buddha’s experience shows, meat eating is an issue with a long philosophical pedigree that bumpersticker slogans like “Meat is Murder” do not do justice.

You’ve raised some good points; what’s appropriate for a chicken isn’t necessarily what we think it is. It reminds me of when we were flying our cats from Japan to the USA. The Wife wanted to put each into the largest pet carrier we could find. A vet explained to us that cats feel more secure in small spaces and recommended small carriers. It turns out the Wife was projecting her own feelings of claustrophobia on the cats.