Whether there is karma in eating meat or not (I shall not go
into that), one should also be aware that 1) not only the Buddha
ate meat that is 'pure' - i.e. meat that is not seen, heard, or
suspected (to be killed for him/her), is pure - but, 2) he allowed
all his monks to eat 'pure meat' regardless of whether they are
ordinary unenlightened monks or they are arahants - and his monks
in the early sangha do in fact, eat meat, and the Theravada
tradition follows the early sangha up till today*, 3) when
Devadatta demanded Buddha to implement strict vegetarianism the
Buddha declined. 4) millions of animals and insects are killed by
pesticides and harvesters in the cultivation of plant-based food as
well. There is no way we can avoid indirectly causing the death of
animals regardless of the food we choose to eat.
So if we are too insistent on vegetarianism, we are in fact,
becoming like Devadatta ourselves. Of course, vegetarianism is also
a good way to cultivate compassion, yet it should never become
insisted as a requirement to become a Buddhist (not saying you are
at fault here). Some may argue it is important for a Bodhisattva
practitioner but I digress.
*Devadatta next plots discord
among the monks by proposing that the Buddha mandate five austere
disciplines for all recluses. These five are as follows:
1. forest dwelling
2. alms begging
3. the wearing of only refuse-rag robes
4. living at the foot of a tree
5. not eating meat or fish
All of these disciplines, Devadatta suggests, should be followed
“for as long as
life lasts.”
The Buddha’s response is again sharp:
Enough, Devadatta. . . . Whoever wishes, let him be a
forest-dweller;
whoever wishes, let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village;
whoever
wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him
accept an invitation;
whoever wishes, let him be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes,
let him accept a householder’s robes. For eight months, Devadatta,
lodging
at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish
and flesh are pure in respect
of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to
have
been killed on purpose for him)
- Daniel Boucher - Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of
the Mahâyâna
Elsewhere，the Buddha said:
... meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is
seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely
slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three
circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare
there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it
is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has not been
purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the
three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka
Sutta, MN 55
Furthermore, in the Amagandha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata, a
vegetarian Brahmin confronts Kassapa Buddha (a previous Buddha before Gautama
Buddha) in regard to the evil of eating meat. The Buddha countered
the argument by listing acts which cause real moral defilement and
then at the end of the verse, he emphasized that the consumption of
meat is not equivalent to those acts. ("... this is the stench
giving defilement, not the consumption of meat").
........
Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith:
The argument is, and it is the Buddha's argument, recall, that meat
that was not slaughtered for you specifically, that you have not
seen slaughtered, and did not request slaughtered is pure. In case
someone feels this is merely a Hinayāna argument, let me also
remind you that the Madhyamaka author Bhavaviveka also follows the
same argument. Shantideva of course is well known for arguing
against meat eating.
While it is true that the lower tantras instruct us that to be
vegetarian -- tantras like Hevajra instruct us in the opposite
fashion.
So, again, it all depends on what you personally want to
practice.
I am a Dzogchen Community practitioner, therefore I practice
according to that tradition. I believe that refusing to eat meat is
a refusal to extend one's compassion.
In the end, we are all food. Get used to it.
N