Abettors, Accessories and Accomplices will have share in any act good or bad

Context: Meat-seller Dharmavyadha was teaching ethics and morals to the ascetic Kausika, who was sent to him, by a housewife to learn what true learning was. These words are a part of a long discourse by Dharmavyadha to Kausika.

Vol. 3 Aranya Parva (Forest Life of Pandavas)
Chapter 198
Verse 31

paren`a hi hataan brahman varaahamahishaan aham--

na svayam hanmi viprarshe vikriin`aami sadaa tv aham

na bhakshayaami maamsaani rutugaamii tathaa hy aham--

GANGULI'S TRANSLATION
The king is the protector of all the four orders. As regards myself, O Brahmana, I always sell pork and buffalo meat without slaying those animals myself. I sell meat of animals, O regenerate Rishi, that have been slain by others. I never eat meat myself;

.

ybrao a donkey's view
*It is not my job here to define whether slaughtering or meat-selling is good or bad. The concepts of good and bad are abstract to define and delineate, and can lead to ferocious battles.

*I wish to point out: If Dharmavyadha considered slaughtering an animal was undesirable, he cannot avoid the stain of undesirability simply because he was just selling and somebody else was slaughtering. If merchants do not sell butchers do not slaughter. If consumers do not buy, merchants do not sell. All the three, thus become partners in the act of slaughtering. If Dharmavyadha was particular that he should be an excellent campaigner of non-violence (not perfect. No body can be perfect.), he ought to have avoided the profession of selling meat. But this, the King and the Society would not have allowed, because the King Janaka, according to Dharmavyadha himself, was an enforcer of birth-imposed-caste-imposed duties. Dharmavyadha's correct defence can probably be his helplessness in an environment of caste-enforcements and NOT his non-participation in the slaughtering process.

*The above argument can apply even to Priests who ate bacon, beef, fish, meat, pork and other stuff made from killing. Somebody else killed and I bought would not relieve a person of being an accomplice or abettor.

*Ham and pPork eating seems to be quite popular during Mahabharata days (or Mahabharata book evolution days i.e. Gupta dynasty).
The different types of ham and pork recipes of those times are not known. For ham and pork differentiation of modern times: Click to see some clarifications