The Buddha is said to have eaten meat by Lokabandhu
Those seeking to prove Buddha allowed eating meat usually cite a small number of stories in the the Pali Canon. They claim that these show the Buddha eating meat and telling his monks they might do so under certain conditions. However this evidence is flimsy at best: each of the few stories is problematic and in any case the Buddha lived 2,500 years ago, nothing of what he said was written down for 500 years after his death, and many of the stories and rules attributed to him may have been invented by later monks seeking to legitimise their practices.
It seems safest to us to assume we don't know for certain what the Buddha did, and rather than basing our actions on the details of stories of dubious reliability, to look deeper into the principles of what the Buddha stood for and derive our thics from there.
However we will look at 3 of the most common stories. I am indebted to Messrs. Gunasekara, Dhammika, and Sanjivaputta for three clear and confident expositions why the Buddha allowed eating meat, althogh i do not agree with their conclusions, i have quoted extensively from their telling of the relevant stories.
Their three texts are:
The 'locus classicus' for allowing the eating of meat is the Vinaya Pitaka (Mahāvagga, VI, 31-2; the conversion of General Siha) To quote Gunasekara,
"The General had invited the Buddha and the Bhikkhus for a meal at which meat was served. The Jains who had earlier enjoyed the exclusive patronage of the General, now spread the story that Siha has a "fat beast" (thūla pasu) killed for the occasion, and the Buddha by knowingly partaking of its meat, had committed an act of grave karmic consequence (pā.ticcakamma). In fact the meat had not been specially slaughtered, but had been purchased on the market. The Buddha took the opportunity created by this incident to lay down the rule governing the consumption of fish and flesh. Addressing the monks he said: "Do not eat meat knowing that it has been killed specially for (your) use; I allow the use of fish and meat blameless in three ways, unseen, unheard and unsuspected".
(na bhikkave jāna.m udissakata ma.msa.m paribhunjitabba.m.
Anujānāmi bhikkave tiko.tiparisuddha.m maccama.msa.m
adi.t.ta.m asuta.m aparisankitan ti [V I 233])In this the Buddha says to his monks that they could eat 'blameless' meat - meaning meat which was neither 'seen, heard, or suspected' to have been killed especially for them. However another way of translating the same text takes it to mean that the Buddha's followers should not eat anything that is 'seen, heard, or suspected' to be meat at all - a clear prohibition. The crucial words "to have been killed especially for you" are always added in brackets by the translator, without these the text simply prohibits eating anything suspected of being meat.
Even if it is not a clear prohibition, it seems clear that the Buddha wanted his monks - who begged all their food - to avoid meat if at all possible, and only to accept it if it was already inextricably part of the family dinner pot, so as not to cause extra work for the householder. This might have been appropriate as a principle for single, wandering beggar-monks surrounded by a supportive laity, monks who were trying to take only what they needed without imposing any burden on the communities that supported them - but it does NOT justify the eating of meat by organised Buddhists whether monastic or lay - ie the very great majority of Buddhists today, East and West. In fact it would be difficult if not impossible to find a single Buddhist in the West today who really lives as the Buddha's monks did., and to whom his words therefore apply.
Given the unclarity of the translation, the slenderness of the source, and the great distance between us and the life and times of the Buddha, it seems in any case quite wrong to try to lead our lives mimicing the rules he made for his monks so far away and so long ago - instead we should look at the principles underlying those rules and use them to derive our own. Principles are invariant and timeless, practices are situational and should be ever-responsive to changing conditions.
The second story comes from Vinaya Nissaggiya Pacittiya 5 and according to Ven Brahmavamso, who cites it at length, "the observation that the meat is purely incidental to the main theme of the story emphasizes the authenticity of the passage". He tells us:
"Uppalavanna (meaning 'she of the lotus-like complexion') was one of the two chief female disciples of the Buddha. She was ordained as a nun while still a young woman and soon became fully enlightened. As well as being an arahant (enlightened) she also possessed various psychic powers to the extent that the Buddha declared her to be foremost among all the women in this field. Once, while Uppalavanna was meditating alone in the afternoon in the 'Blind-Men's Grove', a secluded forest outside of the city of Savatthi, some thieves passed by. The thieves had just stolen a cow, butchered it and were escaping with the meat. Seeing the composed and serene nun, the chief of the thieves quickly put some of the meat in a leaf-bag and left it for her. Uppalavanna picked up the meat and resolved to give it to the Buddha. Early next morning, having had the meat prepared, she rose into the air and flew to where the Buddha was staying, in the Bamboo Grove outside of Rajagaha, over 200 kilometres as the crow (or nun?) flies!" He comments, "Though there is no specific mention of the Buddha actually consuming this meat, obviously a nun of such high attainments would certainly have known what the Buddha ate."This story clearly belongs to the realm of myth and symbol rather than literal fact, and to rely upon it for the justification of so weighty a karmic action as eating meat would seem folly indeed.
The third canonical source is often seen as the 'coup de grace' for those seeking to prove the Buddha saw vegetarianism as unimportant. To quote Sanjivaputta,
"Within the circle of the Buddhists, Devadatta was the main pioneer for practice of Vegetarianism. Accompanied by his four conspiring monks, he strived for imposition of five extreme rules to the whole members of the Sangha, one of which was the rule to abstain absolutely from any food made of fish or meat. In response to this demand, the Gotama Buddha stated that the monks who felt comfortable, agreeable, and suitable to the rule may practice it. However, He rejected to validate and to apply the rule to all the monks compulsorily.""From the discretion provided by the Gotama Buddha, it is very clear that Vegetarianism is actually not an official part of the Dhamma Vinaya. Vegetarianism is an unrequired and unimportant practice. The practice of Vegetarianism is not a 'passport' for achievement of the purity and the Real Freedom (Nibbana)." He concludes, "In other words, whether Vegetarianism is practised or not, a person still has an opportunity and capacity to achieve the purity and the Real Freedom."
In his eagerness to prove his case, Sanjivaputta goes far beyond what the text actually tells us, and omits to give any context to the story. At that time Devadatta was making a bid of leadership of the Sangha, and had clearly turned against the Buddha - as proven by the fact that shortly after this story he tried to kill him! Not surprising that the Buddha rejected his rules.
Anyone today who purchases meat, eats meat knowing that it has been purchased for them, or plays any part in arranging for meat to be supplied, is certainly not 'blameless'.
Let us base our practices on the clear and unchanging principles of non-harm, love, compassion and empthy not the dubious details of handed-down stories.