No, it depends on why you are eating animals. For instance Buddhist monks not only can eat meat, but are obligated to eat it at times - yet are also required not to harm any living creature.
So to explain why that is:
Buddhist monks and nuns are required as one of their rules of conduct to accept any meat that is offered to them. Except they can't eat the meat of wild cats, and a few other exceptions like that for historical reasons.
They must also refuse meat if the animal is killed especially for them. If someone says "Please eat this chicken, which I'm about to kill for you" then the monk is obligated to refuse to accept it.
But anyt other meat they are offered no matter what it is, they are obligated to accept it so long as it is edible (unless it is bad for their health).
That can seem very strange and inconsistent if you come to it from a western perspective. But it's all about the practice of non harming - and also encouraging other people's generosity.
Buddhist monks and nuns are following a personal practice of non harming. Many Buddhists practitioners also take this commitment without being monks.
So, the reason for practicing non harming is not particularly to save the lives of animals generally. Buddhists like everyone else recognize that there is no way we can save the lives of all animals in the world. It's not practical or possible. And they have short lives in the wild often and will die anyway. And we also think in terms of some continuation beyond this life. So who is to say whether the next life (or whatever it is) of the animals that die might often be better than this one?
It is rather to practice compassion, and to open out to others. And the main thing is to avoid killing humans - if you take that vow. And - it is possible to keep compassion even while killing others, compassion even for the people you are killing at the moment you do the killing.
But the Buddhist monks are following a path of training in non harming where they are doing this particular practice in order to train themselves to be less of a nuisance to the world, and then as a basis to then develop compassion and insight. And it's thought that taking this vow of non harming is a good way to do that.
So - you are also saving the life of the creature you don't harm, if e.g. you avoid killing an insect even. And that's a positive thing, saving a life. Even though it has a short life and will surely die soon anyway, still you've made a positive connection to it there.
But they aren't on a crusade to stop everyone else from killing animals. You even get Buddhist soldiers, they can't take a vow of non killing of course. A modern Buddhist country has to have at least a small army which will of necessity, if it is a Buddhist country, consist of Buddhists who are also soldiers.
And if you've taken this vow, and someone offers you meat, and they have killed an animal expressly for you, then you can't accept - because it then goes against the vow of non harming. Also you can't, for instance, buy a lobster either alive or if someone kills it for you on the spot.
But if someone offers you meat that they have killed already, or you even buy meat yourself from a shop that comes from a farm animal someone you don't even know has killed - this is not going against the vow of non harming. Because you didn't kill it and no animal was killed expressly for you by someone else.
This is really hard for many Westerners to understand, the cases seem similar, can't see any reason for these distinctions. But the point is it is basically mind training, training yourself. Not a crusade to save animals. ~And the main focus of the vow is to restrain from killing humans. And to have a less aggressive approach to the world.
So, in the same way is no obligation at all I think for anyone to kill animals if they eat meat. You have to work out for yourself why you are eating meat.
But this isn't in any way saying there is anything wrong either with traditional hunters for instance who kill as hunter gatherers. Often with respect for the animals they kill. It is just a different path that's all. A different path in life in which they relate to animals in a way that Buddhist monks don't. There are even stories of Buddhist siddhas (highly realized beings) who kill animals or fish. E.g. Tilopa, who was reproached by his disciple Naropa for killing fish.
Tilopa was a great teacher who had many great teachers also but eccentric, and though praised for his insight, to all appearances he didn't seem to be practicing what he was taught by his teachers at all. In this story he then demonstrated his understanding by what we'd call a miracle.
You don't have to believe that happened literally as described there, but basic idea that things are not as simple as we think. If you see someone else killing a fish, and you yourself have taken a vow of not killing, you should think carefully before assuming that they are doing anything harmful in their lives, although because of your vow, to do so yourself would be going against your vows.
So (for a Buddhist who has taken a vow of non harming, or a Buddhist monk or nun) to accept the generosity of someone else who offers you meat is encouraging their generosity and at the same time not in any way going against the vow of non killing. Even if they killed the animal themselves, so long as they didn't kill it explicitly for you. And you also shouldn't feel in that situation that you are encouraging them to do anything harmful either. They are just following a different path from you.
And it's a bit the other way around also, when others see a Buddhist eating meat, and it doesn't make sense to them because they also say they've taken a vow of non killing - well it's really for the Buddhist himself or herself to sort it out and if you can't understand why they are doing it, then have to leave it at that. There are many Buddhists who are vegetarian. But there are many that are not.
And after all if you eat carrots - well many insects die in order that you can eat your carrots. And your carrots also had many tiny creatures we now know with modern science in and on it when you cooked it. It's not really that different. As with eating an animal not specifically killed for you - there was no intention to kill insects when you ate the carrot.
So for a Buddhist practicing non harming, it is not a violation to eat carrots, or to eat meat that is not specifically killed for you. It's the intention behind it that matters.
Jains have a much stricter understanding of non harming. They wear cloths over their noses and mouths to avoid breathing insects, the monks especially, and are careful even about harming plants - they avoid harming plants as much as possible and by preference eat fruit for that reason. But even they recognize that it is impossible to avoid harming living beings altogether, that harming other beings unintentionally is part of what it is to be human. But they feel that what they do is meaningful all the same.
So many different approaches here.
Oh and I live in Scotland, West Coast. We used to have wolves here centuries ago.
Without wolves, then the red deer populations grow with no control, as Scotland has no large predators now - there is nothing else that can tackle a deer. And they don't naturally reduce their birth rates as they get larger populations. So if there are too many of them, they starve and suffer. They also destroy trees by ring barking, and those trees are the homes to many other creatures.
So humans have to take the place of wolves here. Every year, twice a year then they have a hunting season for the stags, and a separate hunting season for the hinds. They pay particular attention to the forests, because the deer eat the young trees. But they have to keep them down everywhere. This is partly done through sport shooting, but partly it is just professional deer hunters who kill the deer as the only way ,known to manage them at present.
Though I could never take part having taken a vow of non killing, I totally recognize that this is essential for the welfare of the deer themselves. There is no other solution that is humane. Except to reintroduce wolves. And they would be less humane killers possibly than the humans that have replaced them. There is a movement to reintroduce wolves, but also many who are not too keen on that idea.
And I would eat the meat from these deer, indeed have done so, probably anyway as it is on sale and I've been offered deer meat to eat by relatives. It's not been killed for me so that doesn't go against the Buddhist vow of non killing and non harming which I've taken.
So to explain why that is:
Buddhist monks and nuns are required as one of their rules of conduct to accept any meat that is offered to them. Except they can't eat the meat of wild cats, and a few other exceptions like that for historical reasons.
They must also refuse meat if the animal is killed especially for them. If someone says "Please eat this chicken, which I'm about to kill for you" then the monk is obligated to refuse to accept it.
But anyt other meat they are offered no matter what it is, they are obligated to accept it so long as it is edible (unless it is bad for their health).
That can seem very strange and inconsistent if you come to it from a western perspective. But it's all about the practice of non harming - and also encouraging other people's generosity.
Buddhist monks and nuns are following a personal practice of non harming. Many Buddhists practitioners also take this commitment without being monks.
So, the reason for practicing non harming is not particularly to save the lives of animals generally. Buddhists like everyone else recognize that there is no way we can save the lives of all animals in the world. It's not practical or possible. And they have short lives in the wild often and will die anyway. And we also think in terms of some continuation beyond this life. So who is to say whether the next life (or whatever it is) of the animals that die might often be better than this one?
It is rather to practice compassion, and to open out to others. And the main thing is to avoid killing humans - if you take that vow. And - it is possible to keep compassion even while killing others, compassion even for the people you are killing at the moment you do the killing.
But the Buddhist monks are following a path of training in non harming where they are doing this particular practice in order to train themselves to be less of a nuisance to the world, and then as a basis to then develop compassion and insight. And it's thought that taking this vow of non harming is a good way to do that.
So - you are also saving the life of the creature you don't harm, if e.g. you avoid killing an insect even. And that's a positive thing, saving a life. Even though it has a short life and will surely die soon anyway, still you've made a positive connection to it there.
But they aren't on a crusade to stop everyone else from killing animals. You even get Buddhist soldiers, they can't take a vow of non killing of course. A modern Buddhist country has to have at least a small army which will of necessity, if it is a Buddhist country, consist of Buddhists who are also soldiers.
And if you've taken this vow, and someone offers you meat, and they have killed an animal expressly for you, then you can't accept - because it then goes against the vow of non harming. Also you can't, for instance, buy a lobster either alive or if someone kills it for you on the spot.
But if someone offers you meat that they have killed already, or you even buy meat yourself from a shop that comes from a farm animal someone you don't even know has killed - this is not going against the vow of non harming. Because you didn't kill it and no animal was killed expressly for you by someone else.
This is really hard for many Westerners to understand, the cases seem similar, can't see any reason for these distinctions. But the point is it is basically mind training, training yourself. Not a crusade to save animals. ~And the main focus of the vow is to restrain from killing humans. And to have a less aggressive approach to the world.
So, in the same way is no obligation at all I think for anyone to kill animals if they eat meat. You have to work out for yourself why you are eating meat.
But this isn't in any way saying there is anything wrong either with traditional hunters for instance who kill as hunter gatherers. Often with respect for the animals they kill. It is just a different path that's all. A different path in life in which they relate to animals in a way that Buddhist monks don't. There are even stories of Buddhist siddhas (highly realized beings) who kill animals or fish. E.g. Tilopa, who was reproached by his disciple Naropa for killing fish.
Tilopa was a great teacher who had many great teachers also but eccentric, and though praised for his insight, to all appearances he didn't seem to be practicing what he was taught by his teachers at all. In this story he then demonstrated his understanding by what we'd call a miracle.
"Although the fish is universally recognized as a symbol of the spiritual life, in this case a specific legend also applies. It is said that Tilopa was once cooking a fish when his disciple Naropa arrived on the scene. Naropa reproached his teacher for killing a sentient being, causing Tilopa to respond by restoring the fish to its original state. Tilopa then relaxed his grip on the fish, whereupon it rose heavenward and disappeared in a shower of rainbows. Tilopa's point was not only that things are not always what they seem, but also that the fish is a profound metaphor for sentient beings caught in the ocean of samsara. As an enlightened teacher, Tilopa has the ability to guide disciples out of the samsaric ocean to escape suffering and rebirth. Thus the symbolism of the fish in this statue will be especially meaningful to students of Tilopa's teachings."
Shakya Statues Trade, Tilopa
You don't have to believe that happened literally as described there, but basic idea that things are not as simple as we think. If you see someone else killing a fish, and you yourself have taken a vow of not killing, you should think carefully before assuming that they are doing anything harmful in their lives, although because of your vow, to do so yourself would be going against your vows.
So (for a Buddhist who has taken a vow of non harming, or a Buddhist monk or nun) to accept the generosity of someone else who offers you meat is encouraging their generosity and at the same time not in any way going against the vow of non killing. Even if they killed the animal themselves, so long as they didn't kill it explicitly for you. And you also shouldn't feel in that situation that you are encouraging them to do anything harmful either. They are just following a different path from you.
And it's a bit the other way around also, when others see a Buddhist eating meat, and it doesn't make sense to them because they also say they've taken a vow of non killing - well it's really for the Buddhist himself or herself to sort it out and if you can't understand why they are doing it, then have to leave it at that. There are many Buddhists who are vegetarian. But there are many that are not.
And after all if you eat carrots - well many insects die in order that you can eat your carrots. And your carrots also had many tiny creatures we now know with modern science in and on it when you cooked it. It's not really that different. As with eating an animal not specifically killed for you - there was no intention to kill insects when you ate the carrot.
So for a Buddhist practicing non harming, it is not a violation to eat carrots, or to eat meat that is not specifically killed for you. It's the intention behind it that matters.
Jains have a much stricter understanding of non harming. They wear cloths over their noses and mouths to avoid breathing insects, the monks especially, and are careful even about harming plants - they avoid harming plants as much as possible and by preference eat fruit for that reason. But even they recognize that it is impossible to avoid harming living beings altogether, that harming other beings unintentionally is part of what it is to be human. But they feel that what they do is meaningful all the same.
So many different approaches here.
Oh and I live in Scotland, West Coast. We used to have wolves here centuries ago.
The last wolf in Scotland may have been killed in 1680. Was this the last wild wolf of Britain? (The demise of Scotland's wolves)
Without wolves, then the red deer populations grow with no control, as Scotland has no large predators now - there is nothing else that can tackle a deer. And they don't naturally reduce their birth rates as they get larger populations. So if there are too many of them, they starve and suffer. They also destroy trees by ring barking, and those trees are the homes to many other creatures.
So humans have to take the place of wolves here. Every year, twice a year then they have a hunting season for the stags, and a separate hunting season for the hinds. They pay particular attention to the forests, because the deer eat the young trees. But they have to keep them down everywhere. This is partly done through sport shooting, but partly it is just professional deer hunters who kill the deer as the only way ,known to manage them at present.
Though I could never take part having taken a vow of non killing, I totally recognize that this is essential for the welfare of the deer themselves. There is no other solution that is humane. Except to reintroduce wolves. And they would be less humane killers possibly than the humans that have replaced them. There is a movement to reintroduce wolves, but also many who are not too keen on that idea.
And I would eat the meat from these deer, indeed have done so, probably anyway as it is on sale and I've been offered deer meat to eat by relatives. It's not been killed for me so that doesn't go against the Buddhist vow of non killing and non harming which I've taken.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0