Everyone can, and will, draw their own lines! As the EBT component must be addressed, I don’t think there’s a problem with identifying killing animals personally is the first precept?
1 Like
When somebody eat meat there is no killing neither alive being is killed at that moment. We can imagine some animal alive, other animals, the suffering of the animal realm, etc… Then we are going to another place with our own imaginations. We escape from the true reality and the reality factors defining that moment in where there is no killing neither intention to kill
Regarding progress there is nothing wrong in eating a piece of meat.
Avoid eating meat is not an action for liberation but for purification. A renounce. Same if you avoid buying clothes manufactured in non-human conditions, etc… The offer for such renounces is endless and even they are part of the crazy market. With social preachers, etc… Because this world is a place with killing and suffering of all sorts. However, the Dhamma is not a tool to save the world. The Buddha taught us the Dhamma to save us from the world instead to save the world.
These renounces for purification are a personal issue.
3 Likes
Well said,
As Ven Gavesako says at the end of this video, we’re not trying to save or improve the world (those on the supermundane path at least)
2 Likes
It’s also not necessary to wear clothes, use shelter, use electricity, use the internet, shower, wash dishes, clean surfaces, etc. to successfully practice the Noble Eightfold Path…
You see where I’m going here, right? All of these things are not necessary to successfully practice the Noble Eightfold Path. So why do it? That’s a serious question. You know that in the modern world during the production of all of those products and services animals are killed, so why do you use them when they are not necessary to successfully practice the Noble Eightfold Path?
It’s hard to say, but one might suggest that there is much evidence that ‘not eating meat’ was an ascetic practice in ancient India, and the Buddha seems to have experimented with the practice while he was going through his self-mortification phase prior to enlightenment. When he formulated the monastic rules he allowed just 13 ascetic practices (dhutanga) for those inclined to self mortification, but these 13 do not include ‘not eating meat’.
Having said that, there is evidence that having a bath every day was also an ascetic practice in ancient India, so times do change. 
5 Likes
Could be because some ascetics believed that water purified them, there’s a sutta about that and the Buddha saying it doesn’t do anything for purification.
1 Like
thanks for that video.
1 Like
Very nice post. Yes, it was long but am glad you shared it anyway! 
3 Likes
Well, you’re right: I don’t think the Buddha said it is necessary to eat meat to practice the Eightfold Path in the EBT.
However, I just found this tidbit in the Vinaya, where the Buddha basically says it is not necessary to be vegetarian or vegan:
“Enough, Devadatta,” he said. “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).”
This was in response to Devadatta’s five requests, with the fifth request below:
'For as long as life lasts, let them not eat fish and flesh; whoever should eat fish and flesh, sin would besmirch him.’
Vinaya extract here. Hope this is helpful. 
4 Likes
That’s really wonderful! I am very happy for you. Your post was TL;BDR - tad long, but did read. Thanks for your very personal sharing, and I am very happy to hear that the Dhamma has brought you happiness.
To your point about animals suffering in the industrial food system, I’d like to offer a thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment, that all the world’s meat is actually made from roadkill. The system that is killing these animals is our human transport system: planes , trucks, cars etc. The animals that are killed are harvested from the road, and then placed in our supermarkets and sold to consumers. Of course, there is then a system incentive to kill more animals: part of the animals are killed by a special part of the transport system, where those system-parts focus on killing more animals to sell.
Replace “human transport system” with “human systems”, and perhaps this thought experiment is probably not far from the truth at all: even if the sub-systems that focus on animal husbandry are removed, the overall human systems will still continue killing other living beings. The “Roadkill” concept is, in my mind, what separates the eater of the animal from the kammic consequences of killing the animal.
As such, I personally think that the most compassionate thing that one can do is actually to practice the path well, maybe don’t have kids, and do your best so that you are not reborn at all, or are reborn on a non-material plane that doesn’t require resources from earth.
But that’s just my two cents. What do I know? 
3 Likes
Apology accepted.
No one was making an argument against veganism/vegetarianism. As someone who eats meat for nutritional and health reasons, I’m not concerned about what people personally choose to eat or not eat. Everyone is free to choose what they put in their bodies, and I don’t have the right to demand people to do otherwise. It was the vegans/vegetarians who were making the argument against eating meat, and demanding that we become vegans/vegetarians like them, otherwise in their eyes we are morally compromised.
Thank you for that insight. I truly appreciate it.
That was one of my points. I have never met any meat-eater demanding that vegans/vegetarians eat meat, but I have met plenty vegans/vegetarians demanding that meat-eaters stop eating meat. Why is that? Why do they cling so much in controlling what other people eat? Why do they judge, insult, and morally condemn us for our dietary choices (and in my case: medical, health and nutritional necessities)? What have we–what have I ever done to any of you in this forum to be personally insulted, accused of breaking the First Precept, and be equated to a killer for eating meat? What are my transgressions? My sins? I would kindly ask all of you to let go of the craving and clinging in trying to control other people. The only outcome is resentment, anger, hatred, pain, and suffering for all, and happiness for none…
Many people, like me, eat meat because of medical, health, and nutritional requirements. Believe me, I tried being a vegetarian, I truly did with all my heart. In fact, I was a vegetarian for a whole year, but had to stop because my health had greatly deteriorated. I was suffering from nutritional deficiencies, low energy, foggy mind, high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, extremely overweight, and was having constant chest pains. Really scary stuff. Health-wise, it’s the worst I’ve ever felt: I had hit rock bottom, and constantly feared that I would leave my wife a widow and my children fatherless.
So yes, I was a vegetarian for a whole year, but it didn’t work out for me. Like all of you vegans/vegetarians in this forum, I share your concern about the horrible treatment of animals in the meat industry: I’m not stupid, or ignorant, or callous to this concern. But I also have to practice loving-kindness and compassion towards myself by prioritizing my health and well-being, and have the responsibility to be a husband to my wife and a father to my kids for as long as I can–what’s the point if I live a miserable life and die an early death being a vegetarian?
Yes, it’s possible, and you are one of them. I wish to meet more vegans and vegetarians as kind and compassionate and understanding and full of metta as you are.
And I truly hope that your happiness continues for the rest of your life. You are truly blessed–not many people can say that. I’m happy that you’re happy, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Likewise.
8 Likes
you don’t make any real divisiveness I believe. A normal discussion. And in our contemporary Internet standards it has been very polite.
The choosing to be vegan can be a source of merit for yourself and a tool to develop metta if you feel that.
You maybe can remember when the Buddhist world joined the ban on tobacco inside temples and monasteries, despite this is not against any precept. They did that because an international and WHO pressure over the whole world. And for sure to avoid to be an obstacle in a collective action for a better health (it doesn’t care other added possible reasons). Reducing the meat conssumption can be hundred times more sincere and important for the world in ethics, ecology and health. It would be surprising and good seeing that same world machinery in this issue.
Nobody knows what will happen in this madhouse in the coming future. On my side I’m not vegan neither I have difficultes to eat another thing so I don’t care. Simply I don’t make the same renounce than yours. I answered because I think important make an effort in seeing the sense of Dhamma teaching as it is. Frequently there is more depth of what we believe in a first view. Diversity of beings and minds is too large, and what the Buddha taught for sure goes in the benefit of the more possible beings.
Probably in this Path everybody do renounces of different types. Maybe the choosing depends of kamma.
all the best
1 Like
As we try to always maintain on D&D/SC, following the tenets of Right Speech. 
Actually, I’m amazed how many words this topic is generating. Probably because, as with smoking bans, we can find guidance in the EBTs but feel that socio-cultural conditions have radically changed.
Nevertheless my amazement remains. I guess my personal issue is whether, when I generate words, it is to encourage my own practice or to persuade others to change theirs.
I continue as a bad vegetarian with a strong interest in veganism. Best I can do atm.
8 Likes
On the a positive side of its practice:
‘What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord. AN10.176
The three poisons are more important to focus on, than the eating of meat:
Taking life, torture, mutilation too,
binding, stealing, telling lies, and fraud;
deceit, adultery, and studying crooked views:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Those people of desires and pleasures unrestrained,
greedy for tastes with impurity mixed in,
of nihilistic views, unstable, hard to train:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
The rough, the cruel, backbiters and betrayers,
those void of compassion, extremely arrogant,
the miserly, to others never giving anything:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Who’s angry, obstinate, hostile and vain,
deceitful, envious, a boastful person too,
full of oneself, with the wicked intimate:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Those of evil ways, defaulters on debts,
imposters, slanderers, deceitful in their dealings,
vile men who commit evil deeds in this world:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Those people unrestrained for living beings here,
taking others’ property, on injury intent,
immoral, harsh and cruel, for others no respect:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Towards others greedy or hateful—they attack them,
ever on misdemeanours bent,
they go to darkness after death;
such beings as this fall headlong into Hell:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
Not from fish and flesh tasting and not by nudity,
not by the plucking of head-hairs,
nor growing of matted locks,
not by the smearing of the ashes of the dead,
not wearing abrasive skins,
not following sacrificial fires,
or worldly austerities for gaining immortality,
nor mantras, nor offerings,
oblations, seasons’ services
can purify a mortal still overcome by doubt.
Who lives with sense-streams guarded, well-aware,
in the Dharma firm, enjoying gently rectitude,
beyond attachments gone, all dukkha left behind,
that wise one’s unsullied by the seen and the heard.
Narrator
Again, again the Radiant One this topic taught
to that knower of the Vedas, in those mantras expert,
thus clarified the Sage in verses sweetly-sounding.
Him of no carrion-stench, free who’s hard to trace. SuttaCentral
6 Likes
Oh well. I’m a bit of an amateur naturalist (not “naturist”!). I love watching animals, and I don’t want to eat them. I can no longer view animals as lower species, or as “sub-humans”, or merely as “products” to be farmed and consumed. Watching animals closely has also made me more aware that I’m an animal too, there is inevitably a degree of empathy, and a connection.
For me this awareness has developed naturally as an aspect of Buddhist practice, and it troubles me that not everyone gets it.
Meanwhile the Japanese are whaling again. Where are those U-boats when you really need them?
3 Likes
an answer can be in MN 35:
“Aggivessana, whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as you — not without passion, not without aversion, not without delusion — that will be for the donors. Whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as me — without passion, without aversion, without delusion — that will be for you.”
then maybe it can depend when our words are closer to the Buddha teaching instead our own or third views.
sure it should be difficult in these times. You do an admirable task.
Rescuing that same MN 35, there one can see about the conditions for the arising of Right Speech. Maybe this is useful today, because many people is in anguish for the state of the world. And the attachment to ideologies and fixed positions grows like quick recipes, the societies become polarized, etc… And this is visible also in Dhamma discussions.
Dhamma discussions with people associated or attached to ideologies is not an easy thing. Also, the attachment to any ideology impedes the arising of honesty, which is a previous condition for the arising of the Right Speech. Of course I don’t say that because this thread, in where the concerns and honesty of Benjamin has been open and clear.
I refer to a disguised approach characteristic in the attachment to ideologies. In Buddha times did not exist our modern label of “ideologies”. That same place was occupied by different philosophies. Some of the more contundent discussions inside the Suttas appears with such type of minds, attached or possesed by ideologies. And because the lack of honesty is unavoidable in the attachment to any ideology, there is a lack of true Right Speech and a paralization of progress in the Path.
This is what happens in the MN 35. The Buddha was in discussion with Saccaka, a type of sophist. He was an ideologist attached to a materialistic ideology. The attachment to that ideology caused a lack of honesty in the discussion with the Buddha, and finally a contingent reaction.
It’s quite easy to detect views attached to ideologies. Although due we live in so-called democracies, sometimes we can believe this attachment is not a serious obstacle for the progress in Dhamma. However, the attachment to ideologies can be a serious issue for the progress. From the Suttas it is not clear if Saccaka was finally alliberated, despite he became a follower of the Buddha.
That Sutta shows how anyone attached to any ideology of this world will remain paralized by the world. Without possibility to surpass the world. Then as soon one can be free from ideologies it will be the best for progress, for the arising of honesty in Dhamma, and then for the arising of a true Right Speech.
I actually have, as a vegetarian, run into people who have insisted I share dishes which had meat in them, as they thought one could pick out the meat parts without ill affects. (As someone who maintained a vegetarian diet due to inability to digest meat products, this was not true for me or some others; consequences were cramps, diarrhea, other immune system effects. Sometimes the choice was go hungry or suffer consequences; I tried both options, depending sometimes of what obligations I had.)
And as a vegetarian, I never insisted anyonr else eat or not eat anything; I rarely suggested or discussed this choice because I always saw it as quite personal, rather than an identity or necessity.
I am not clinging to these identities; as Buddhists, perhaps we can support each other in this…
7 Likes
MN35 does make the drawback of being attached to ideology extremely clear; thanks for drawing attention to the sutta.
“It’s when one of my disciples truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ And having seen this with right understanding they’re freed by not grasping. They truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’…" MN35
It’s hard, really hard to maintain Right View, Right Effort etc with no attachment to the results we might hope for. I’m very uncertain about judging levels of attachment in others, because it’s hard to judge without referring to one’s own attachments.
I guess that judging more successfully happens when attachment is replaced with compassion, compassion for all sentient beings: which include of course bugs, farm animals and one’s interlocutors.
Yes, indeed.
I hope we Buddhists can support each other in this way.
With regard to diet, I feel I never had better advice than that received from a Hindu friend, who said that her guide was to eat as low down the food chain as possible at the time. I find this a worthy aspiration: one that acknowledges that life can’t be maintained without any sacrifice of other life, which also allows for appropriate readjustments according to changing circumstances.
Personal circumstances shift. Ecological circumstances shift. How compassionately can we react, bearing in mind that self-compassion and other-compassion are connected? It’s a good guide but the answer will come out differently for different people at different times.
10 Likes
My body and mind seem to not be very concerned about what other people feed me (my current restrictions seem to be - it has to be recognised as food and it is not alive at the time of ingesting or choosing). Obviously left to my own devices I will eat what I wish within the restrictions of what is available. When catering for other people who have more restrictive dietary requirements, I try to treat them as if they are highly allergic to the foods that they say they do not eat. You wouldn’t intentionally feed peanuts to someone with peanut allergies, why feed meat to a vegetarian? And if someone needs meat for their well-being, then I’ll get some meat in. In the UK, the supply chain is not very reliable though, so you can’t trust the labels on food packaging.
It’s funny how these things change. When I was a growing up, a ‘vegetarian’ was someone who didn’t eat meat every day.
6 Likes
When I was growing up in the UK a vegetarian was an out-and-out crank.
9 Likes