Dharma Study &
Frequently Asked Questions

First among the moral injunctions, and one that also is accepted and shared by all schools and lineages of Buddhism, is the First Precept – Do Not Kill: 

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami 

“I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.”

This practice of not killing, or not causing harm, stems from the same quality that led the Buddha to end his solitude following his awakening and go into the world to teach – compassion. Just as his purpose in enunciating the Four Noble Truths was to provide a guide to the end of suffering, so too the First Precept, by recognizing that all beings want to live and want to be free of suffering, stems from this very same compassion. The act of killing and the taking of life is anathema to this guiding principle. It is a manifestation of the unwholesome root dosa, or ill will, and it is a cause of suffering for both yourself and others.

The Buddha outlined five great gifts, the first of which is the gift of life.

Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. (Streams, Anguttara Nikaya 8.39) 

Importantly, the prohibition on killing does not apply only to someone personally killing an animal. It also applies to someone who causes another to kill. This recognizes the notion that you are not absolved from responsibility by simply asking another to do an act that you choose not to do yourself. Whether you solicit someone to kill on your behalf or conspire with another to kill, you are as morally liable as if you did the killing yourself.

The principle of not taking part in any aspect of the meat industry, whether you kill the animal yourself or not, is also implicit in the Noble Eightfold Path factor of Right Livelihood, which lists five trades or businesses that cause harm to others and should thus be avoided (Vanijja Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 5.177). One of these businesses – trading in meat – prohibits selling meat, and trading in living beings includes raising animals for slaughter. The fact that raising animals and selling meat, in addition to the actual slaughtering, is proscribed by this path factor, makes it clear that it is not simply the person killing the animal who is doing harm. If a livelihood based on the trade and slaughter of animals is Wrong Livelihood, how can purchasing and consuming the meat be Right Eating? Anyone who participates in the process in any capacity is causing harm, and this includes those who eat the final product.

The Nalaka Sutta states,

[Reflecting] ‘As I am, so are they;
As they are, so am I,’
Having taken oneself as the criterion,
One should not kill or cause others to kill. (Suttanipata 3.11) 

And the Dhammapada states,

All tremble at violence;
All fear death.
Seeing others as being like yourself,
Do not kill or cause others to kill. (Dhammapada 129)

These sentiments about compassion and loving kindness towards living beings are also reflected in the familiar wish for welfare for all from the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

May all beings be happy and secure;
may they be inwardly happy
Whatever living beings there are
whether frail or firm, without omission,
those that are long or those that are large,
middling, short, fine, or gross;
whether they are seen or unseen,
whether the dwell far or near,
whether they have come to be or will come to be, 
may all beings be inwardly happy! (Suttanipata 1.8)

These are not idle words or ideas to be taken lightly. They are meant to be lived every moment.

“It has always been my preference to be vegetarian since I became a Buddhist. Compassion has always been defined very simply with the same fixed expression… It is the quality of the heart… of a good person [that] trembles with the suffering of others, and is the wish to alleviate the suffering of others. So it would seem to me, sort of intuitively, that if one has this deep quality of compassion, that one doesn’t want others to suffer, and one knows that either ordering meat or consuming meat is going to, through some chain of causation [case and effect], bring about even the cruel upbringing, [imprisonment, exploitation] and slaughter of animals, that out of compassion, one would adopt vegetarianism….”

-Bhikkhu Bodhi

The two largest branches of modern Buddhism are the Theravada and the Mahayana, and while they have differences, there is also agreement on many, if not most, of the fundamental teachings. The basis for vegetarianism, even veganism, is found in both traditions, however its presentation is markedly different. Accordingly, the specific teachings of the Theravada and the Mahayana will be discussed separately.

Theravada 

While the totality of the teachings dictate a vegetarian diet, many dedicated practitioners continue to eat animals, and the most common justification relies on a notion found in the Theravada scriptures called the three purities (tikoparisuddha). The formulation is found in several places, including the Jivaka Sutta, where the Buddha responds to the accusation that he eats animals killed for him. He replies:

I say 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 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 on these three instances. (Middle Length Discourses 55)

The first thing to note about this “threefold rule” is that it is not really a rule; it is an exception to a rule. The rule, which is implied by the exception, is, Do not eat meat - unless you do not even suspect that the animal was killed for you. Put in another way, unless you are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the animal was not killed for you. A compassionate vegetarian/vegan diet is the Buddhist norm.

 For those who rely on the three purities to justify meat-eating, the false logic goes as follows: “According to the three purities,” which actually applies only to monastics, “if an animal is not specifically killed for you, then it’s okay to eat it. When you eat meat purchased at a market, butcher shop or restaurant, the animal is not killed for you.” Therefore, some will mistakenly take the perspective that “it’s okay to eat meat under these circumstances.”

Here is how Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses this issue,

“… if somebody goes into a market, say on a Tuesday, and orders a piece of chicken at the sales counter, somebody [there] will click some kind of calculator, which will determine on Tuesday, that a piece of chicken was sold, which will send out a message for next Tuesday, that we have to meet the same quantity of chickens to satisfy our customer base. Even though you order the chicken on Tuesday, you are not responsible for the death of the chicken that is providing that meal on [that] Tuesday, but in an indirect way, you can be sending a signal that next Tuesday, a chicken should be killed to provide food for the customers….”

Mahayana

The question of eating animals is addressed at length in several Mahayana sutras, and the prohibition is clear and unequivocal. In Chapter Eight of the Lankavatara Sutra the Buddha offers numerous reasons to abstain from eating animals and continually reaches the same conclusion:

Thus, Mahamati, wherever there is the evolution of living beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [to be loved as if they were] an only child, let them refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion, [the eating of] meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not [compassionate] of a Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat. The flesh of a dog, an ass, a buffalo, a horse, a bull, or man, or any other [being], Mahamati, that is not generally eaten by people, is sold on the roadside as mutton for the sake of money; and therefore, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva should not eat meat.

In the Lankavatara, the Buddha also rejects the exception of the threefold purity. 

It is not true, Mahamati, that meat is proper food and permissible for the Sravaka when [the victim] was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him. 

There is no meat to be regarded as pure in three ways: not premeditated, not asked for, and not impelled; therefore, refrain from eating meat. Let not the Yogin eat meat, it is forbidden by myself as well as by the Buddhas; those sentient beings who feed on one another will be reborn among the carnivorous animals.

There are thirty-seven statements in D.T. Suzuki’s translation of the Lankavatara Sutra to the effect that followers of the Buddha should not consume meat.  Nearly half of these are phrased identically as “refrain from eating meat”, such as,

...let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh.

...let the Bodhisattva whose nature is holy and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat.

...let the Bodhisattva, who is desirous of benefiting himself as well as others, wholly refrain from eating meat.

This chapter concludes with a list of twenty-four reasons why eating meat is prohibited, ending with, 

[Meat-eating] is forbidden by me everywhere and all the time for those who are abiding in compassion…. Therefore, do not eat meat which will cause terror among people, because it hinders the truth of emancipation; [not to eat meat—] this is the mark of the wise.

The subject is also addressed In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Here the Buddha addresses the threefold purity as follows:

These three kinds of pure meat were so instituted following the need of the occasion.

…three pure meats are permitted standing on different grounds and the ten kinds of meats are permitted on different standpoints.  By different standpoints, all are prohibited, until the time of one’s death.  O Kasyapa!  “I from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat.”

In the Surangama Sutra, the Buddha instructs:

How then can those who practise great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings? If bhiksus do not wear garments made of (Chinese) silk, boots of local leather and furs, and refrain from consuming milk, cream and butter, they will really be liberated from the worldly; after paying their former debts, they will not transmigrate in the three realms of existence. Why? Because by using animal products, one creates causes (which are always followed by effects)...

In the Brahmajala Sutra, the Buddha explains,

“My disciples, you should not intentionally eat meat. The consumption of meat is entirely unacceptable, as doing so will cut you off from the seed-lineage of great compassion.”

In short, in the Mahayana sutras the proscription against eating animals is explicit and conclusive. And while the Pali suttas of the Theravada canon do provide a narrow exception for consuming meat, eating meat as part of one’s daily diet is wholly incompatible with the Dhamma as it necessarily involves the unnecessary suffering and killing of innocent sentient beings.

The conditions of today’s factory farms are nothing short of brutal. Birds are crammed into windowless sheds, debeaked without anesthesia to minimize the harm caused by their biting and pecking at one another. Animals are routinely castrated and their tails cut off without anesthesia. Many people restrict themselves to “organic” meat and “free-range” eggs, but these farms are far from cruelty-free. In even the least brutal, male chicks are ground up alive or suffocated in plastic garbage bags the day they hatch. On even the least brutal dairy farms, baby cows are taken from their mothers soon after birth, a traumatic experience for both mother and calf. Those males designated as veal calves are confined to a tiny space, unable to move, for their entire short lives to ensure that their flesh remains tender. However humane these “cruelty-free” farms claim to be, it is axiomatic that when people use animals for money, the animals suffer.

As the Buddha explains in the Surangama Sutra, 

How then can those who practise great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings? If bhikus do not wear garments made of (Chinese) silk, boots of local leather and furs, and refrain from consuming milk, cream and butter, they will really be liberated from the worldly; after paying their former debts, they will not transmigrate in the three realms of existence. Why? Because by using animal products, one creates causes (which are always followed by effects)....

While the slaughter may be hidden from sight and done by others, when we purchase meat we are soliciting that killing act. We are asking those who work within the meat and dairy industry to do the killing for us so that we can eat that hamburger or chicken. We are complicit, and the teachings are very clear on this point. Whether you kill the animal yourself or pay someone else to do it, you cannot escape moral responsibility. 

The principle of not taking part in any aspect of the meat industry, whether you kill the animal yourself or not, is also implicit in the Noble Eightfold Path factor of Right Livelihood, which lists five trades or businesses that cause harm to others and should thus be avoided. (See Vanijja Sutta, supra.) One of the businesses – trading in meat – prohibits selling meat, and trading in living beings includes raising animals for slaughter. The fact that raising animals and selling meat, in addition to the actual slaughtering, is proscribed by this path factor, makes it clear that it is not simply the person killing the animal who is doing harm. If raising the animal is Wrong Livelihood and selling meat is Wrong Livelihood, how can purchasing and consuming the meat be Right Eating? Anyone who participates in the process in any capacity is causing harm, and this includes those who eat the final product. 

By participating in the system, we contribute to both the suffering of the animal and the act of taking its life. Given the numbers we may be only a tiny fraction of the overall consumption, but however marginal, we cannot distance ourselves from the culpability. Looked at another way, if no one ate meat, billions of animals would not be killed annually for human consumption. These animals are killed only because there is a demand for meat. Animals are killed only because there is a demand for meat. When we buy meat at a store or restaurant, another animal will be killed to replace it. By abstaining from eating animals, we reduce the demand and thus the killing. By eating animals, we increase the killing.

“We people want to keep our bodies and minds free from karma created in connection with the bodies of other living creatures or with anything that comes from them. One cannot physically take life, nor can one do so mentally. One should not eat anything connected with the life of another being or eat the flesh of their bodies. ‘I say that such people have true liberation.’ They have really become free.” - Master Hsuan Hua

“Being vegetarian here also means that we do not consume dairy and egg products (i.e.vegan), because they are products of the meat industry. If we stop consuming, they will stop producing. Only collective awakening can create enough determination for action.” - Thich Nhat Hanh

"I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world. We should consume in such a way that helps to reduce the suffering of living beings. And that way we can preserve compassion in our hearts." - Thich Nhat Hanh

“It just takes one second to decide to stop. It doesn’t create any huge chaotic changes in our life. It’s just that we eat something else. It’s so simple.. A small effort can bring a very big result for animals, for the disadvantaged, for the planet, for our own health. A sensible mind can see this is not an extreme perspective. This is a most reasonable, ethical, and compassionate point of view.” - Matthieu Ricard

“You can’t have any dairy products – milk, cream, butter, cheese, yogurt, ice cream – without the deaths of billions of male calves. Often these are raised in tiny cages for the first few months of their lives before being slaughtered for veal. Look at the veal-cruelty videos. And look at how dairy cows are treated. The contented cow grazing in a lush green pasture story is a myth. A dairy industry lie, actually. Most are raised on factory arms standing in mud and excrement, milked by machine and forcibly impregnated on what some in the industry call a “rape rack.” At birth their babies are torn away from them, causing great suffering to both. The milk meant for the calves is then stolen for human consumption. Do we have here the three non-virtuous actions of body: killing, stealing and sexual misconduct?

Eggs are not much better. Nearly all the billions of male chicks born annually are killed almost immediately by being ground up alive or smothered or gassed in large plastic bags with thousands of others. I could not bear to be part of this any longer.

Finally, I looked at the cruelty of the wool and leather industries, the incredible exploitation of bees in the production of honey, the torture of animals in medical research and circuses and their misery in zoos and decided to become a vegan, to distance myself completely from the animal slavery business. I mean, the essence of Buddhism is “if you can’t help others, at least don’t harm them.” All this is just so contrary to the Dharma.”

-Nicholas Ribush, MD, BS, Director of the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive

The practice of not killing, or not causing harm, stems from the same quality that led the Buddha to end his solitude following his awakening and go into the world to teach - compassion. Just as his purpose in enunciating the Four Noble Truths was to provide a guide to the end of suffering, so too the First Precept, by recognizing that all beings want to live and want to be free of suffering, stems from this very same compassion. The act of killing and the taking of life is anathema to this guiding principle. 

In both the suttas and the sutras, the Buddha refers not specifically to humans but rather to the all-inclusive living beings or all living beings in almost every teaching on compassion, lovingkindness and the preservation of life. Here are a few examples:

One Should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor cause others to kill.

-Nalaka Sutta (Suttanipata 3.11) 

May all beings be happy and secure;

May they be inwardly happy!

Whatever living beings there are

whether frail or firm, without omission, 

those that are long or those that are large,

middling, short, fine, or gross;

Whether they are seen or unseen,

whether they dwell far or near,

whether they have come to be or will come to be,

may all beings be inwardly happy!

- Loving-Kindness (Metta Sutta), (Suttanipata 1.8)

Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).

He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.

-Dhammika Sutta (Suttanipata 2.14)

I have loving-kindness for footless creatures;

for those with two feet I have loving-kindness.

I have loving-kindness for those with four feet;

for those with many feet I have loving-kindness. (…)

May all beings, all living things,

all creatures, every one,

meet with good fortune;

may nothing bad come to anyone.

 -Snakes, Anguttara Nikaya 4:67

With the law of the world-fleeing, the killing of even a mosquito or an ant buys one sin.

- Mahaparinirvana Sutra

To fully appreciate the extent to which the Buddha instructed his followers that even the tiniest living beings are to be protected, consider the fact that the Buddha included a water strainer as one of the requisites monastics should possess. This strainer was to be “used to provide clean water and to protect small beings in the water from being harmed.” 

While the above is reason enough not to kill animals, there is another rationale for the practice of non-harming towards all sentient beings. According to the teachings, at some point you have been related to virtually every single being in existence.

Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning.. .. It is not easy, bhikkhus, to find a being who in this long course has not previously been your mother . . . your father ... your brother ... your sister ... your son ... your daughter. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. 

-Anamataggasamyutta (Anamataggasamyutta 15.14)

All males are our fathers, and all females are our mothers. In our numerous past lives there is no one who has not been our mother or father. Therefore the sentient beings in all six destinies are all our fathers and mothers. So if we slaughter them and eat them it is the same slaughtering and eating our own parents, as well as slaughtering [and eating] my own former body. All lands and waters are my former body, all fires and winds are my original essence. Therefore you should always carry out the freeing of captive animals, so that things can continue to be reborn and undergo rebirth. The eternally abiding Dharma encourages people to free living beings. When you see someone in society killing animals, you should try to come up with a way to protect them, and to release them from their predicament. Always teaching by lecturing on the bodhisattva’s code of morality, you save sentient beings.

-Brahmajala Sutra

For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat; I will explain them: Mahamati, in this long course of transmigration here, there is not one living being that, in having assumed the form of a living being, has not been your mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or the or the other, in various degrees of kinship; and when acquiring another form of life may live as a beast, as a domestic animal, as a bird, or as a womb-born, or something standing in some relationship to you; [this being so] how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself?

-Lankavatara Sutra

When you kill a cow or a chicken, you are likely killing a creature that was once a close relative.

“The first of the five precepts reads in Pali, Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; in English, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life." Here the word pana, meaning that which breathes, denotes any living being that has breath and consciousness. It includes animals and insects as well as men.”

-Bhikkhu Bodhi

A note on what is meant by “all” or “all beings” in the suttas:

Verse 129 of the Dhammapada reads in Pali,

sabbe tasanti daṇḍassa, sabbe bhāyanti maccuno

Among the common translations of this passage are: 

All tremble at violence; All fear death. 

All are frightened of the rod. Of death all are afraid.

All men tremble at punishment, all men fear death.

The first word of this verse in the original Pali is sabbe. This is the plural accusative of sabba. Sabba is defined by the Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary as “whole, entire, all, every”. It is a completely inclusive term without qualification. If this passage were intended to refer exclusively to humans, as we see in the third translation presented above, instead of sabbe we would expect to see a word, in its plural accusative form, such as nara (“man, human being”), purisa (“man”), manuja (“human being)” or puggala (“person, man”). As a result, we can say with confidence that “all” means all from a Buddhist perspective. 

Morality plays a central role in both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. In the oft-quoted Kalama Sutta, Buddha Skakyamuni asserts unequivocally that there are moral imperatives about which we can be certain - we must abandon hate, malice, and defilement, and cultivate the purity of mind. 

Morality is the companion of purifying the mind. As the Buddha states in the Dhammapada,

Doing no evil,

Engaging in what’s skilful,

And purifying one’s mind:

This is the teaching of the buddhas. (Dhammapada 183)

Morality is also the foundation of the threefold division of the Eightfold Noble Path: morality (sila), concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (panna) found. Without its development, concentration and wisdom cannot be adequately cultivated. 

This is reinforced by teachings found throughout the canon, including the practice of metta, or lovingkindness, which is common to the Ten Perfections (paramitas) of both Theravada and Mahayana traditions.

This is such an essential point that it is made in the very first line of the Visudhimagga (The Path of Purification), written by Buddhaghosa and considered the classic treatise on Theravadin meditation. Here he  quotes the Buddha from the Samyutta Nikaya, saying, 

When a wise man, established well in virtue, 

Develops consciousness and understanding, 

Then as a bhikkhu, ardent and sagacious 

He succeeds in disentangling this tangle. 

Buddhaghosa also made the point, defining Virtue as “the states beginning with volition present in one who abstains from killing living things….

The decision to stop eating meat is an act of compassion consistent with the First Precept and the factor of Right Action of the Eightfold noble path. To continue to eat meat is a violation of these paramount Buddhist qualities and is inconsistent with the practice of non-harm in all aspects of one’s life. 

The Lankavatara Sutra is explicit in its association of eating meat with hindrances, with ignorance and refraining from doing so with meritorious conduct. 

Mahamati, setting that thus there are obstacles to the accomplishing of all the practices, let the Bodhisattva, who is desirous of benefiting himself as well as others, wholly refrain from eating meat.

-

And, Mahamati, the ignorant and simple-minded are not aware of all this and other evils and merits [in connection with meat-eating]. I tell you, Mahamati, that seeing these evils and merits, the Bodhisattva whose nature is pity should eat no meat.

-

As greed is the hindrance to emancipation, so are meat-eating, liquor, etc, hindrances.

-

To those who eat [meat] there are detrimental effects, to those who do not, merits….

In short, the proscription against killing or causing another to kill an animal is undisputed in the Buddhist teachings. It is the foundation of morality, which is the cornerstone of the development of concentration and wisdom. The killing and eating of animals has no place in the Dharma.

In the Buddha’s discourse to the people of Bamboo Gate, he teaches that instructing others in refraining from the destruction of life is imperative.

He himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. (Suttanipata 5.55)

Therefore, practicing and advocating for a compassionate diet, free from animal products is directly supporting the Buddha’s teaching. It is not a distraction from our practice. It is a foundational element of our practice. 

As Matthieu Ricard has said,

If devoting a part of our thoughts, words, and actions to the reduction of the unspeakable suffering that we deliberately inflict on animals, our fellow sentient beings, constitutes the sin of suffering too lightly, what does spending time listening to popular music, engaging in sports, or lying on the beach getting a suntan amount to? Do people who give themselves over to these activities or other activities like them suddenly become abominable people just because they do not spend all of their time trying to remedy the famine in Somalia?

-

Thus the supposition that the welfare of humans is fundamentally in competition with the welfare is unfounded. It is clear that including in our concerns the lot of other species is in no way incompatible with doing our best to solve human problems. The fight against cruelty to animals is part of the same process as the fight against torturing humans.

-

There are a thousand ways to refrain from harming animals and to be vigilant in their protection without the least negative effect on the human species, without reducing by one minute the time one spends with one's family, and without utilizIng even the least fraction of the resources set aside to help those human beings who are in dire circumstances.

Some dharma practitioners try to justify their eating habits by saying that whether or not we eat animals has nothing to do with the dharma, but since eating animals determines whether other sentient beings live or die, it necessarily lies at the core of the dharma. When one is biting into, chewing, and swallowing the wing of a turkey or a chicken, one is directly and intimately involved in the death of that being. Neither the turkey nor the chicken wanted to be slaughtered and then eaten by a Buddhist. How many billions of animals will die this year to feed the approximately one billion Buddhists in the world?

As the Buddha states in his discourse to the people of Bamboo Gate, instructing others in refraining from the destruction of life is imperative.

He himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. (Suttanipata 5.55)

How we address this topic, with Right Speech, rather than Wrong Speech, is relevant. The Buddha outlines the criteria for speech that is “well-spoken” in the Vaca Sutta,

Bhikkhus, possessing five factors, speech is well spoken, not badly spoken; it is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise. What five? It is spoken at the proper time; what is said is true; it is spoken gently; what is said is beneficial; it is spoken with a mind of loving-kindness. Possessing these five factors speech is well spoken, not badly spoken; it is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise. -Speech (Anamataggasamyutta 5.195)

Finally, with regard to passing judgment, the Buddha teaches that judging rightly is itself upholding the Dhamma,

One is not just

Who judges a case hastily.

A wise  person considers

Both what and what isn’t right.

Guiding others without force,

Impartially and in accord with the Dharma,

One is called a guardian of the Dharma,

Intelligent and just. (Dhammapada 256-257) 

So it is not so much whether we speak on this situation or whether we judge, but how we do it, in accordance with the Dharma.

The Buddha outlines four types of attachment or bonds in the Yoga Sutta. These are attachment to sensuality or sensual pleasure, attachment to existence, attachment to views and the attachment of ignorance. These arise when “someone does not understand [these attachments] as they really are.” (AN 2.10) 

Understanding these four as they really are, “the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape,” then one has severed these attachments.

A desire for meat is the very sort of craving that the Buddhadhamma is intended to help us overcome. It is helpful to be mindful of the craving for certain foods at certain times. As the Buddha states in the Kilesasamyutta, the Connected Discourses on Defilements,

Bhikkhus, desire and lust for craving for forms  is a corruption of the mind. Desire and lust for sounds … for odours … for tastes … for tactile objects … for mental phenomena is a corruption of the mind. When a bhikkhu has abandoned the mental corruption in these six cases, his mind inclines to renunciation. A mind fortified by renunciation becomes wieldy in regard to those things that are to be realized by direct knowledge. (SN 5.27) 

Understood in this way, committing to remove animal products from our diet is not a form of attachment. When we are resistant to giving up animal products, which we may be accustomed to and enjoy, this can be seen as attachment to the sensual pleasure of eating. While a compassionate diet may contain many foods that are delicious and pleasant to eat, the motivation for abstaining from consuming animal products is not an attachment to a plant based diet. The motivation is the cultivation of boundless compassion and the practice of working for the well-being of all animals. Unyoking from sensual pleasure, then, is becoming free from all sensuality and would not apply any more to enjoying plant-based foods than those containing animal products.

From this perspective, adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet is also not, in and of itself, an attachment to views. Rather it is part of our practice of the Dhamma. That is not to say that we cannot become attached to this aspect of our practice, any more so than any other aspect of our practice, in such a way that we fail to further progress on the spiritual path. 

As unenlightened beings, we do not give up the Dhamma as an attachment to views, rather we cultivate these skillful views and discard unskillful ones until the time we transcend all views. Furthermore, from the standpoint of the Mahayana, eating meat is itself an attachment. According to the Lankavatara Sutra,

I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasasttvas of the present and future may teach the Dharma to make those beings abandon their greed for meat, who, under the  influence of the habit-energy belonging to the carnivorous existence, strongly crave meat-food.

-

They [those who eat meat] may talk about various discriminations which they make in their moral discipline, being addicted to the view of a personal soul, Being under the influence of the thirst for [meat-] taste, they will string together in various ways some sophistic arguments to defend meat-eating.

-

From eating [meat] arrogance is born, from arrogance erroneous imaginations issue, and from imagination is born greed; and for this reason refrain from eating [meat]. From imagination, greed is born, and by greed the mind it [sic] stupefied; there is attachment to stupefaction, and there is no emancipation from birth [and death].

The Buddha taught that we develop wisdom (panna) by overcoming our attachments and cravings. And so, conquering our craving for animal flesh is not only an act of compassion and social responsibility, it is a step on our spiritual path. Vegetarianism/veganism contribute to the end of suffering for both ourselves and the sentient beings who we are no longer causing to be killed or causing to experience extreme suffering, It is a Buddhist compassion practice from which everyone benefits.

This question misunderstands what is meant by the Middle Path, attachment to views, extreme views, and extreme practices. 

The Middle Way is not simply the midpoint between any two opposing positions. It is the way that avoids extreme asceticism on the one hand, and the overindulgence of sense pleasure on the other. Therefore, the Middle Way is not “meeting in the middle” by eating meat some days and observing a vegetarian or vegan diet on others. It is following the Eightfold Path in its entirety, including the factor of Right Action, which prohibits killing. 

To understand what is meant by “attachment to views”, we only need to look at the Alagaddupama Sutta, which contains both the parable of the raft and the water-snake simile. Here, the Buddha explains the correct way to grasp the Dhamma, he does not direct us to put down all attachments to our practice.

So, attachment to views doesn't mean that putting aside the Path, putting aside the Precepts, and putting aside the practices of karuna and metta. It does, however, mean putting aside the attachment to views that conflict with the Dhamma and inhibit our practice. The Buddha defines “extreme views” in his explanation of Right View in the Kaccanagotta Sutta,

'All exists': Kaccana, this is one extreme. 'All does not exist': this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle…. (SN 12.15)

These extreme views that “the self and the world are eternal” and that  “the view that there is nothing” are detailed and further refined in a larger list of sixty-two views outlined in the Brahama-Net Sutta. None of these involve attachment to views such as the benefits of practicing universal compassion and lovingkindness. 

With regard to what constitutes an “extreme practice”, the Buddha outlines these in the Mahasihanada Sutta, the Greater Discourse on the Lion’s Roar. Here he recounts his own austerities practiced while he was an ascetic,

Such was my asceticism, Sariputta, that I went naked, rejecting conventions, licking my hands, not coming when asked, not stopping when asked; I did not accept food brought or food specially made or an invitation to a meal; I received nothing from a pot, from a bowl, across a threshold, across a stick, across a pestle, from tow eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a woman giving suck, from a woman in the midst of men, from where food was advertised to be distributed, from where a dog was waiting, from where flies were buzzing; I accepted no fish or meat, I drank no liquor, wine, or fermented brew. I kept to one house, to one moresel; I kept to two houses, to two morsels; … I kept to seven houses, to seven morsels, I lived on one saucerful a day, on two saucerfuls a day… on seven saucerfuls a day; I took food once a day, once every two days… once every seven days; thus even up to once every fortnight, I dwelt pursuing the practice of taking food at stated intervals. I was an eater of greens or millet or wild rice or hide-parings or moss or ricebran or rice-scum or sesamum flour or grass or cowdung. I lived on forest roots and fruits; I fed on fallen fruits.I clothed myself in hemp, in hemp-mixes cloth, in shrouds, in refuse rags, in tree bark, in antelope hide, in strips of antelope hide, in kusa-grass fabric, in bark fabric, in wood-shavings fabric, in head-hear wool, in animal wool, in owl’s wings. I was one who pulled out hair and beard, pursuing the practice of pulling out hair and beard. I was one who stood continuously, rejecting seats. I was one who squatted continuously, devoted to maintaining the squatting position. I was one who used a mattress of spikes; I made a mattress of spikes my bed. I dwelt pursuing the practice of bathing in water three times daily including the evening. Thus in such a variety of ways I dwelt pursuing the practice of tormenting and mortifying the body. Such was my asceticism. (MN 12.45)

We can see that refraining from “fish and meat” are listed among austere practices, defined elsewhere as “the way of undertaking things that is painful now and ripens in the future as pain”. There are a number of  other items on this list that we would not, today include as extreme, austere, or painful, including abstaining from alcohol (temperance is a requirement for monks and is also included under the Fifth Precept for lay disciples), eating at only one time of day (which is a practice strictly observed by Theravadin monastics), wearing hemp clothing (which is now a thing), or bathing in water three times a day. Most relevant, however, is that most of the restrictions observed with regard to food, eating once a week, once every two weeks. are conditions any of us, monastic or lay, would take on. 

In examining what the Buddha has taught on each of these points, it should be clear that vegetarianism and veganism are not contrary to the Middle Way, are not attachments to be rid of, and are not extreme views or practices. Instead, they are foundational to the observing the requirement to not kill or cause to kill, and to work for the wellbeing of all creatures, great or small, through the practices of compassion and universal lovingkindness.

In the Cetana Sutta, the Buddha defined karma as volition, “what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency toward.”  These are intentional acts of body, speech and mind. Likewise, if “one does not intend, and does not plan, and one does not have a tendency toward anything,” there is no longer a basis for karma and the ongoing rounds of samsara. Therefore, while unfortunate, from an ethical standpoint the unintentional destruction of life is not generative of karma.

Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses this question as follows, 

Responsibility for killing is incurred only when the perpetrator of the act is aware that the object of his action is a living being. Thus if we step on an insect we do not see, the precept is not broken because the perception or awareness of a living being is lacking.

The first important point to note in this definition is that the act of taking life is defined as a volition (cetana). Volition is the mental factor responsible for action (kamma); it has the function of arousing the entire mental apparatus for the purpose of accomplishing a particular aim, in this case, the cutting off of the life faculty of a living being.

Ajahn Sujato has this to say, 

Ethics is not concerned with the ultimate escape from all suffering, but with minimizing the harm and maximizing the benefit we can do right here. It is relative and contextual. Sure, being vegetarian or vegan we will still cause harm. And sure, there are boundary issues as to what is really vegetarian (Honey? Bees are killed. Sugar? Animal bones are used for the purification process… )

But the fact that we can’t do everything does not imply that we shouldn’t do this thing. The simple fact is that eating meat causes massive and direct harm to many creatures. That harm is, almost always, easily avoidable.

There are methods that can be applied to reduce the amount of killing that goes along with farming, whether it be the mass production of food or your home garden. One of the best reference materials on this subject is The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukaoka. Here he describes a method that maintains and even encourages the presence of the full range of living beings within the ecosystem of cultivation, reducing the destruction of life and at the same time greatly increasing yields from a more natural and harmonious method.  

In both Theravada and Mahayana cosmology plants do not fall within the realm of sentient beings. Likewise there is not a plant realm within Buddhist cosmology. As the Buddha explains in the Mahasihananda Sutta, the Greater Discourse on the Lion’s Roar,

Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five? Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings, and gods. (Mahasihananda Sutta, 12)

The remainder of this sutta consists of the Buddha explaining his perception of how one’s conduct leads to rebirth in these various realms. As there is no path to rebirth in a plant realm, there are no sentient beings that would exist in such a realm.

To the extent that this question attempts to refer to “scientific studies” proving that plants have feelings, respond to human stimuli, “scream” in their own fashion at their own injury or that of other plants, etc. Mainstream science does not support this theory, and a recent paper on this subject proposes that, “Based on a survey of the brain anatomy, functional complexity, and behaviors of a broad spectrum of animals, criteria were established for the emergence of consciousness. The only animals that satisfied these criteria were the vertebrates (including fish), arthropods (e.g., insects, crabs), and cephalopods (e.g., octopuses, squids).”

-

“The first of the five precepts reads in Pali, Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; in English, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life." Here the word pana, meaning that which breathes, denotes any living being that has breath and consciousness. It includes animals and insects as well as men, but does not include plants as they have only life but not breath or consciousness.”

-Bhikkhu Bodhi

In the Cetana Sutta, the Buddha defined karma as volition, “what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency toward.”  These are intentional acts of body, speech and mind. Likewise, if “one does not intend, and does not plan, and one does not have a tendency toward anything,” there is no longer a basis for karma and the ongoing rounds of samsara. Therefore, while unfortunate, from an ethical standpoint the unintentional destruction of life is not generative of karma.

Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses this question as follows, 

Responsibility for killing is incurred only when the perpetrator of the act is aware that the object of his action is a living being. Thus if we step on an insect we do not see, the precept is not broken because the perception or awareness of a living being is lacking.

The first important point to note in this definition is that the act of taking life is defined as a volition (cetana). Volition is the mental factor responsible for action (kamma); it has the function of arousing the entire mental apparatus for the purpose of accomplishing a particular aim, in this case, the cutting off of the life faculty of a living being.

Ajahn Sujato has this to say, 

Ethics is not concerned with the ultimate escape from all suffering, but with minimising the harm and maximising the benefit we can do right here. It is relative and contextual. Sure, being vegetarian or vegan we will still cause harm. And sure, there are boundary issues as to what is really vegetarian (Honey? Bees are killed. Sugar? Animal bones are used for the purification process… )

But the fact that we can’t do everything does not imply that we shouldn’t do this thing. The simple fact is that eating meat causes massive and direct harm to many creatures. That harm is, almost always, easily avoidable.

There are methods that can be applied to reduce the amount of killing that goes along with farming, whether it be the mass production of food or your home garden. One of the best reference materials on this subject is The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukaoka. Here he describes a method that maintains and even encourages the presence of the full range of living beings within the ecosystem of cultivation, reducing the destruction of life and at the same time greatly increasing yields from a more natural and harmonious method.

“It is impossible to say: ‘Let all beings be happy.’ Because, if a flesh-eater says: ‘May all beings be happy”, while he is crushing flesh between his teeth, it will be sheer hypocrisy. Therefore if a flesh-eater wants to be logical, he should say, while eating flesh food: 

May all creatures be happy, except those creatures which I am chewing between my teeth.”

-Venerable U Lokanatha

As consuming meat and animal products is the cause of great suffering and death for living beings, there is no provision in the suttas or status for saying a prayer for the animals which are killed and consumed. As killing is prohibited in the First Precept and antithetical to the practices of compassion and lovingkindess, there is no doctrinal basis for the position that we can balance our consumption of meat and animal products with prayer.

In the Tibetan lineages of the Mahayana, there are teachers who, although they themselves followed a vegetarian diet and advocated for their followers to do the same, did prescribe the practice of prayer for those who had not given up the practice of eating meat. One such example is Shabkar who provides the following instructions,

If you are not able to give it [meat] up completely,

then eat it in the faultless way

that involves the threefold purity -

that is, without seeing, hearing or cognizing.

When you eat the meat, it is beneficial to 

say whatever dharanis and mantras

you know, such as Kamkani and so forth,

and then blow on the meat, and eat.

Meditate with compassion on that being.

After eating it, recite many Om Manis.

Then it’s good to make dedication prayers.

Karma Chakme provides a much more extensive prayer and practice in Eating Meat with Compassion, which includes meditation, reciting the names of various Buddhas, chanting “Om Abhira Hum Khecara Mum Svaha” seven times for followers of the sutras. With regard to the practice of tantra, he gives a series of four chants to be recited.

These teachers represent a school of thought within the certain Tibetan traditions that permits eating meat with the recitation of specific prayers. However, it should be noted that  the general position of these teachers was that meat should not be consumed outside very narrow ritual practices, if at all. Still others such as the Karmapa Mikyo Dorje prohibited the eating of meat in all circumstances by his followers, stating

...do not include meat or alcohol in the particular torma used in the gutor or similar rituals. If you do, then do not consider me your teacher.

When we examine the totality of the Buddha’s teaching as recorded in the suttas and sutras, refraining from the consumption of meat and animal products aligns perfectly with the practice of universal compassion and working for the welfare of all beings. Specific allowances may exist within the tantras, but there are even teachers and Lamas within that various Tibetan lineages that prohibit eating meat, regardless of any prayer said for the animal being consumed.

“There is a common belief in Buddhist countries that any one may eat flesh provided he does not kill the animal with his own hands; but it is not so, because eating is the cause of slaughter. If we become vegetarians, all the butchers will have to close their shops and turn to a better profession. By eating flesh we keep a class of people in a miserable profession. It is not fair that we should force the butchers to go to hell for our sake. If we become vegetarians, then the whole world would be at peace.”

- Venerable U Lokanatha

The unwholesome nature of killing animals is seen throughout the Pali canon in its strong and repeated condemnations of trades involving the slaughter of animals. It’s such an ignoble line of work that it is specifically proscribed in the Eightfold Noble Path’s factor Right Livelihood, which lists five trades or businesses that cause harm to others and should thus be avoided. One of these businesses – trading in meat – prohibits selling meat, and trading in living beings includes raising animals for slaughter. As someone who destroys life, a slaughterer is destined for an unfortunate rebirth, either in one of the painful hells or as a species of creeping animals.

"Bhikkhus, a lay follower should not engage in these five trades. What five? Trading in weapons/trading in living beings, trading in meat, trading in intoxicants, and trading in poisons. A lay follower should not engage in these five trades."

-Maintaining a Harmonious Household: Wrong and Right Livelihood (AN 5:177)

The Lankavatara also comments on eating meat as a cause for killing,

“If, Mahamati, meat is not eaten by anybody for any reason, there will be no destroyer of life.”

The principle of not taking part in any aspect of the meat industry, whether you kill the animal yourself or not is implicit in the factor of Right Livelihood, The fact that raising animals and selling meat, in addition to the actual slaughtering, is proscribed by this path factor, makes it clear that it is not simply the person killing the animal who is doing harm. If raising the animal is Wrong Livelihood and selling meat is Wrong Livelihood, how can purchasing and consuming the meat be Right Eating? Anyone who participates in the process in any capacity is causing harm, and this includes those who eat the final product.

Dolpopa answers this question by quoting the Adibuddha Tantra,

Eaters and killers are, nonetheless, both killers.

“When we respect someone, we respect his or her needs and interests; most especially we respect his or her love of life. Killing innocent beings because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is inherently disrespectful.”

-Norm Phelps

Eating animals and animal products is itself a negative act of karma. If you consider the suffering of the animals, contributing to this chain of causation is unskillful and counter to the First Precept to not kill or cause to be killed. Furthermore, eating animals and animal products creates the causes and conditions for negative karma to be generated by those who are responsible for violation of the First Precept as well as the Path factor Right Livelihood to not trade in meat. Because animals are raised for their meat and other products and that they suffer greatly both in life and in death, one should have the awareness that there is little to be thankful for. Further consideration of factory farming’s contribution to global hunger and environmental pollution should reinforce the fact that one cannot be truly mindful of how one’s actions accord with the Dharma while eating meat and other animal products..  

Jigmé Lingpa advises students to think that the animal whose meat they are about to eat was, in a past life, their kind parent and so should be treated with kindness in return. In so doing, he concludes, “If you are a normal minded person thinking about this, your heart will break, and you will necessarily develop compassion towards the animal. Then, even if you can’t develop perfect compassion, something similar will definitely arise.” 

Finally, Master Hsuan Hua, in his commentary on the Shurangama Sutra, explains, 

Master Hsuan Hua: “We people want to keep our bodies and minds free from karma created in connection with the bodies of other living creatures or with anything that comes from them. One cannot physically take life, nor can one do so mentally. One should not eat anything connected with the life of another being or eat the flesh of their bodies. ‘I say that such people have true liberation.’ They have really become free.”

Being mindful should be a motivation to reduce and ultimately eliminate meat and animal products from our diet. Being mindful of the violation of the suffering of the animals, the violation of the precepts, and the negative karma incurred by all of those involved in the process provides nothing to be thankful for.