Preliminary note: Buddhism can be divided into two main branches. The Theravada tradition is based on the Pali Canon, considers itself the heir to early Buddhism, and is present in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka. The various Mahayana traditions (Tibetan school, Zen, Pure Land, etc.) are based mainly on later sutras, which are said to have been transmitted by the Buddha only to a few disciples, and focus heavily on the path of the bodhisattva, which is a person who renounces or delays their entry into nirvana in order to help all other individuals attain Buddhahood.

That said, vegetarianism in Buddhism has always been the subject of heated debate, as the issue is multifaceted. The original Buddhist community depended on lay people for food and shelter: monks received sustenance and lay people earned merit by providing it. Maintaining this merit-based economy was essential for the survival of the Buddhist community. Refusing meat would have created problems. If the monks had refused food offerings, it would have given the monastic community a bad image. The Buddha therefore allowed his monks to eat meat, but under certain conditions. The animal must not be seen or heard while being killed, nor suspected of having been killed specifically for them. Thus, the monks must not be the cause of an animal’s death, but they could eat its meat if they were free from karmic connections with its death.

The Theravada tradition usually follows this rule, but not necessarily. For example, in the monastery I refer to in Switzerland, they are vegetarians. For Mahayana traditions, however, the matter is different: the goal of practice shifts from self-liberation (as in the Theravada tradition) to the liberation of all sentient beings (including non-human animals) from suffering. Consequently, compassion becomes the most valued virtue and a central component in the way Buddhists relate to the non-human world. So, how can one strive for the liberation of all sentient beings and continue to kill some of them for food? In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha states that it is inappropriate to eat meat because doing so creates a demand for the killing of sentient beings. In practice, this is the law of supply and demand. So, on the one hand, we have an argument along the lines of “since meat is available (and the animal was not killed for us), let’s not waste it”, while on the other hand, the argument is “if you eat meat, you are still encouraging the killing of animals”.

In ancient times, animals grazed outdoors until they were slaughtered, and there was a direct link between the animal and the person who ate it. Today, (hellish) intensive farming is the norm, and the process of killing and slaughtering is far from the eyes and hearts of those who buy meat at the supermarket. In ancient times, therefore, it was easy to understand whether an animal had been killed specifically for a person or not; today, in my opinion, with the industrialisation of farming and its colossal size, the Mahayana argument is more valid: if you eat meat, you are contributing to the meat industry. Supply and demand.

I have always thought that vegetarianism was the right choice. I decided to take the definitive step when I began to take Buddhism seriously and reflect on the implications of concepts such as compassion for all sentient beings, a concept that is also present in the Theravada tradition. Personally, I have always found the separation between those who buy meat and the animal that is killed to be problematic: meat consumption is anaesthetised, it is no longer possible to understand that that leg belonged to a chicken, that that cut was actually cut from a cow or a pig. If I look beyond the packaging, at the suffering behind that cut of meat, I tell myself that I can only be a vegetarian. However, it is not necessary to follow the teachings of Buddha to be vegetarian. For example, the environmental problems caused by the meat industry can be an incentive. It is not even necessary to become 100% vegetarian or even vegan; it would already be a great start to limit one’s meat consumption. We are so fortunate today that there are many vegetarian alternatives available; let’s take advantage of them!