The meat argument.
The Buddha ate meat and refused to ban it; East Asian Mahayana banned it anyway. Two and a half thousand years later this is still the most-argued ethical question in Buddhism.
The Buddha ate meat, permitted monastics to eat it, and explicitly refused Devadatta's demand to make vegetarianism compulsory — the rule he set instead was the threefold one: a monastic may not eat flesh they have seen, heard, or reasonably suspect was killed for them. The logic is about complicity in the intention, not about the meat. Mahayana sutras later rejected this outright, and East Asian monasticism has been strictly vegetarian for over a millennium; Tibetan and much Theravada practice is not, for reasons that are partly agricultural — very little grows at four thousand metres. The modern argument is that the threefold rule was written for a world where you could tell, and a supermarket is not that world.
Monks, I allow fish and meat that are pure in three respects: not seen, not heard, not suspected to have been killed on your account.
Jivaka Sutta (rendered)The rule as given — about complicity, not diet.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.
