Should a Buddhist Eat Meat?

We never cease to be amazed by the number of non-Buddhist individuals that we

encounter who believe that abstaining from eating meat is a prerequisite for being a
Buddhist. However, it is not just amongst non-Buddhists where this view is
prevalent because in the region of about 25% of Buddhist individuals that we meet
(in both the East and West) also appear to share the same view. The question of
whether or not it is appropriate for Buddhists to eat meat raises a number of
important ethical (and practical issues) that are as relevant today as they were when
the Buddha was teaching some 2,500 years ago. In this post, we examine the logic
and scriptural provenance underlying some of the leading arguments for and against
Buddhists eating meat.
A Scriptural Account
We have sometimes read or heard it said that the Buddhist scriptures are ambiguous
on the matter of meat eating. However, this presumption is incorrect because the
Buddha gave some very specific advice on this topic. According to the Jivaka sutta,
the Buddha stated that there are three particular instances where it is acceptable for
a Buddhist practitioner to eat meat, and three circumstances where it is
inappropriate. The exact words as recorded in the English language Pli canon
edition of this sutta (Majjhima Nikya 55) are as follows:
Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is
seen, heard, or suspected that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself. I say that
meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which
meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected that the living being
has been slaughtered for oneself. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.

Thus, the Jivaka sutta, which contains one of the Buddhas most direct
references to meat eating, makes it clear that although the Buddha was adverse to a
spiritual practitioner consenting for an animal to be killed on their behalf, he was
not adverse per se to the idea of a spiritual practitioner eating meat.
Arguments against Eating Meat
The main argument against Buddhists eating meat is that meat eating is incongruous
with the core Buddhist precept of abstaining from taking life, as well as with the
general emphasis placed in Buddhism on cultivating loving-kindness and
compassion towards all sentient beings (including animals and fish). Of course, it
could be argued that if a person buys meat in the supermarket then they havent
personally killed the animal. However, the robustness of this position is questionable
because clearly the consumer is a vital link in the chain of meat production (i.e., if
there wasnt a demand for meat then the number of animals slaughtered for the
purposes of supplying meat would be significantly less).
There are several other views relating to why Buddhists should not eat meat
but they are mostly encompassed by the primary argument outlined above. An
example of such a secondary argument is that by capturing and killing a mature wild
animal (i.e., an animal that has not been specifically bred for meat production), it is
possible that: (i) its offspring will suffer (and possibly die) due to being without the
protection of their mother or father, or (ii) an animal (or animals) higher up the food
chain will suffer (and possibly die) due to not being able to find a prey. In other
words, due to a human being eating just one single animal, it is possible that
numerous other animals will incur suffering.
A further example of a secondary argument relates to the Buddhist view of
reincarnation in which it is implied that a living being that is currently an animal may,
in its recent past, have been a human. Since most people would be repulsed by the
idea of eating a human being, the question arises as to whether it is ethically correct
to eat an animal that was a human being during a previous lifetime. These secondary
arguments add additional food for thought but they are all basically encompassed
by the view that human beings are in many ways responsible for the wellbeing of the
insects, fishes, and animals with whom we share this earth, and that it is cruel to kill
them or cause them to suffer.
Arguments for Eating Meat
From the point of view of practicality, there are certain geographical regions where,
without going to great expense, it would be very difficult for a Buddhist practitioner
to live on a meat-free diet. In arctic, sub-arctic, and tundra regions, it is much more

difficult to grow produce compared to regions that are much warmer. The same
applies to very arid regions where droughts can last for months on end. In such
areas, it is probably unrealistic for a person on an average or below average income
to live on a diet that excludes meat or fish.
In addition to influences and limitations imposed by the elements, an
individuals level of wealth may also affect the dietary options that are available to
them. For example, there are regions of the world that are conducive to growing
produce but where poverty places restrictions on the types of food a person can buy.
In the West, it is becoming increasingly easier to be vegetarian without it meaning
that ones health and nutritional intake somehow has to suffer. Indeed, some
Western supermarkets now have entire sections of the shelves, chillers, and freezers
that are dedicated to meat alternatives and vegetarian meals. Many restaurants in the
West also have vegetarian sections of the menu and there are also some restaurants
that are exclusively vegetarian. However, this isnt the case all over the world and it
is probable that in abstaining from eating meat, some individuals of below average
means would not be able to afford to buy everything they need for a balanced and
healthy diet.
The above arguments are not necessarily in favour of Buddhist practitioners
eating meat but they simply highlight the fact that there are certain circumstances
where it is impractical for an individual to be vegetarian. In addition to such practical
considerations, there are also arguments that support meat eating that are more
philosophical in nature. In particular, there is the argument that by eating meat,
Buddhist practitioners (and anybody else for that matter) are actually sustaining life.
This somewhat paradoxical argument relates to the fact that if there wasnt demand
for meat, then a large proportion of animals currently being bred for meat
production simply wouldnt exist. It is true that some animals bred for meat
production live in conditions that are far from ideal (or that in some instances
constitute cruelty to animals). However, it is also true that many of these animals
particularly in developed countries live in conditions that are deemed to be
comfortable and conducive to their health and wellbeing. Therefore and according
to this line of thought, by eating meat a Buddhist practitioner plays an integral role
in the process of giving and sustaining of life.
The above slightly paradoxical argument could be challenged by asserting that
although the meat eater is a contributing factor for new life being brought into the
world, they are also the cause of that life coming to a premature end. This is a valid
counter-argument but it can be easily undermined by taking into consideration the
fact that even when living in the wild, a lot of animals die prematurely. The reason
for this is because unless they are at the top of the food chain, animals are predated

upon. In fact, even animals that are at the top of the food chain are an easy target
for a carnivorous or scavenging animal when they become sick or old. Thus, in the
wild, there are probably very few animals that die of old age, and it is not uncommon
for an animal that becomes the prey of another animal to meet with a brutal end (in
some cases probably much more brutal than being slaughtered in a controlled
environment).
Concluding Thoughts
There are strong arguments both for and against the Buddhist practitioner eating
meat. According to the suttas, the Buddhas personal view on this matter was that
spiritual practitioners should avoid killing, or directly consenting to the killing of, an
animal intended for consumption by human beings. However, the Buddha was
seemingly not opposed to a person eating meat where the animal had been killed
without that individuals direct knowledge or consent. Our own personal view on
this matter is that Buddhist practitioners should appraise themselves of the key
arguments for and against meat eating, and then come to an informed decision.
As far as we see it, although we would encourage people to make sure that
whatever they eat (meat or otherwise) has not somehow resulted in the subjecting
to cruelty of an animal or human being, there isnt really a right or a wrong position
here. If a spiritual practitioner makes an informed decision and decides that they
would like to eat meat, then thats fine. Likewise, if a spiritual practitioner
understands all of the options and decides that they would like to be vegetarian,
thats also fine. In other words, from the point of view of authentic spiritual
development, the issue of eating or abstaining from eating meat is actually of limited
relevance. Today, some people that call themselves Buddhists make a big deal out
of this issue, but according to the record of the scriptures, it wasnt considered to be
a big deal by the Buddha. In terms of its spiritual significance, rather than what a
person eats, we would argue that how they eat counts for a lot more. If a person
eats meat or a vegetarian meal with spiritual awareness, gentleness, and good table
manners then this will certainly contribute towards their spiritual growth. However,
if a person eats meat or a vegetarian meal in a greedy and mindless manner (e.g., by
slouching over their meal and shovelling it into their mouths), and if they eat without
being considerate of other people who might be in their presence, then such
comportment actually counts as a hindrance towards progressing along the spiritual
path.
Ven. Edo Shonin and Ven. William Van Gordon