Actually in this forum we take the ancient texts of Theravada rather seriously, religiously even. 
Eating a piece of meat does not go against core principles of the suttas. No matter how much one might wish it that meat is not going to come to life.
I will try to add some more texts later but here is an old thread where red fish was suitable food for a novice.
You referred earlier to the capitalistic “animal exploitation industry”. In fact if I go to the supermarket where I live to buy some burger patties I have a choice of frozen ones from Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Australia and USA. All of these were imported and if I bought a packet and offered it to someone there is no way that it could have been 'killed for them".
In fact in the days of the Buddha , like when General Siha asked his men to buy meat at the market the killing would have been done on the same day and very close to where they purchased it. In those circumstances Bhikkhus had to be sure that it was not in fact killed specifically for them.
Regarding if a " monastic is given leftovers from the previous day’s dinner". But the sangha was often offered the most choice food, rather than mere leftovers. Even in Thailand today the faithful prepare the best food available for the monks and only eat what is left after they have given. And meat, chicken and fish are considered among the most choice. It was the same in the Buddha’s time
There are so many suttas where it is said:
MN 35
Then Saccaka the Nigantha’s son had good food of various kinds prepared in his own park and had the time announced to the Blessed One: "It is time, Master Gotama, the meal is ready
MN 81
Then, when the night had ended, King Kiki of Kasi had good food of various kinds prepared in his own dwelling
MN82
When night had ended, the venerable Ratthapala’s father had good food of various kinds prepared in his own house and had the time announced to the venerable Ratthapala: “It is time, dear Ratthapala, the meal is ready.”
MN85
Then, when the night had ended, Prince Bodhi had good food of various kinds prepared in his own residence
MN91Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
- Then, when the night had ended, the brahmin Brahmayu had good food of various kinds prepared in his residence, and he had the time announced to the Blessed One: "It is time, Master Gotama, the meal is ready.
Sujato Translation:
And when the night had passed Brahmāyu had delicious fresh and cooked foods prepared in his own home. Then he had the Buddha informed of the time, saying,
“It’s time, Mister Gotama, the meal is ready.”
Pali: Atha kho brahmāyu brāhmaṇo tassā rattiyā accayena sake nivesane paṇītaṁ khādanīyaṁ bhojanīyaṁ paṭiyādāpetvā bhagavato kālaṁ ārocāpesi:
“kālo, bho gotama, niṭṭhitaṁ bhattan”ti.
The pali for *good food of various kinds (bodhi) or “delicious fresh and cooked foods” Sujato
is paṇītaṁ khādanīyaṁ bhojanīyaṁ
this is defined in the Vinaya
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pc37/en/brahmali?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
Fresh food:
Khādanīyaṁ nāma
apart from the five cooked foods, the post-midday tonics, the seven-day tonics, and the lifetime tonics—the rest is called “fresh food”.
pañca bhojanāni—yāmakālikaṁ sattāhakālikaṁ yāvajīvikaṁ ṭhapetvā avasesaṁ khādanīyaṁ nāma.
Cooked food:
Bhojanīyaṁ nāma
there are five kinds of cooked food: cooked grain, porridge, flour products, fish, and meat.
pañca bhojanāni—odano, kummāso, sattu, maccho, maṁsaṁ.
Tha Ap 268: Macchadāyakattheraapadāna—Jonathan S. Walters (suttacentral.net)
Therāpadāna
The Legends of the Theras
266. MacchadāyakaOn Candabhāgā River’s bank
I was an osprey at that time.
I brought a big fish and gave it
to the Buddha named Siddhattha.
In the ninety-four aeons since
I donated that fish back then,
I’ve come to know no bad rebirth:
that’s the fruit of fish donations.
The four analytical modes,
and these eight deliverances,
six special knowledges mastered,
I have done what the Buddha taught!
I suppose you would take the Noble Eightfold Path rather seriously then 
and one of its factors is harmlessness: Right Resolve: samma sankappo
So the key question is: today is it more harmful to buy meat when you can easily buy tofu instead?
Isn’t it the case that today the animal gets killed specifically for the buyers of its meat? And if one buys the meat specifically to feed a monk, than effectively the animal has been killed for the monk?
Sure, many passages indicate some types of meat were allowed in those times. But is it mentioned how exactly meat came to be at the market? The animal could have been killed as a sacrifice, and the meat bright to the market…
Who’s the animals killed for? The customer. Who’s the customer feeding this meat for?
I find it a convenient loop hole just because there’s a time and distance lag between the killing of animal for the monastics vs the monastics eating it that it’s considered pure under the triple clean meat guide. Only when we reduce the time and distance to like say a live seafood restaurant, then it falls under this guide. Anyway, it’s too much trouble for me to argue for this.
Another possibility is that suspect could be once the monastics finally found out and reflected where meat comes from, then one shouldn’t eat any meat whatsoever. Anuruddha didn’t know where food comes from, how it is produced. But then a counter example would to suggest that Buddha didn’t know, clearly Buddha should know and also he still ate meat at his last meal, so this possibility is shot down.
The harmlessness practice extends strongly for veganism for environmental sake. Global warming kills gradually, not obviously. No. of heat waves death. No. of climate refugee deaths, future war for resources…
The vegetarian thing has been a long debate in the Buddhist world. Although I’ve met far more vegetarians in the US than in any Theravada Buddhist country i’ve visited.
In fact, in the Thai temples i’ve visited with large amounts of western members, the staff actually puts in significantly extra work to make vegetarian and vegan food for the westerners and label them as such for westerners, as id say 10-20% of the people who come to the english meditation classes are vegetarian. Whereas the Thai community is much easier to accommodate since they are not even remotely picky about food and virtually nobody in the Thai community there are vegetarian or vegan.
Either way, the texts are pretty clear cut on this. Eating meat is perfectly fine and is not a hindrance to theravada practice, and you shouldn’t twist the texts and come up with speculative interpretations to fit your own opinions because that’s how you get things like New Age Buddhism or EBT.
That said. Mahayana Buddhism largely embraces vegetarianism, as well as things like recycling and environmentalism because they are all about helping the world/sentient beings etc.
Since Theravada Buddhism tends to focus on personal practice, its largely irrelevant whether or not one is a vegetarian or not (in fact being picky about food can be burdensome in some cases). But that doesnt mean you shouldn’t do it or there isnt value in doing it. Its also largely irrelavent from a theravada practice POV whether or not you recycle or drive an EV or save water/electricity. That does not mean you shouldn’t do those things or they have value in other ways, even if they arent directly related to spiritual development.
In fact, kinda like the environmentalism thing. we kinda have to move toward vegetarianism, or at least cutting down on meat consumption as a planet/society. If everybody in the world ate meat as regularly as they do in First World countries there wouldnt be enough farmland on earth to feed the population. And realistically. first world societies eat way more meat than what is naturally acceptable. The unnatural amounts of meat consumption in the first world is a big reason we have many of the modern health problems we do. So we should avoid or at least reduce our meat consumption. even tho there isnt a direct spiritual benefit to it. Just as we kinda should do things like recycle and cut down our carbon footprint, even tho it isnt necessary/related to enlightenment.
I don’t have this problem.
If the monks do not touch money, they are not the buyer. However, it might ring true for monks who use money and who are consumers. Nevertheless, they rarely buy food at a supermarket.
I do appreciate the compassion of vegans and don’t appreciate the greediness of many people who can’t live without eating meat.
But still the problem is that modern vegans don’t give a successful answer to the following questions.
These questions have been raised by a monk.
In the following passage the 0mniscient One says to Devadatta that first three of his suggestions are “allowed to be followed” by a monk if he wishes, but doesn’t say it for the fifth suggestion (vegitarianism). Why is that?
“Alaṃ, devadatta,
- yo icchati āraññiko hotu, yo icchati gāmante viharatu;
- yo icchati piṇḍapātiko hotu, yo icchati nimantanaṃ sādiyatu;
- yo icchati paṃsukūliko hotu, yo icchati gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyatu.
- Aṭṭhamāse kho mayā, devadatta, rukkhamūlasenāsanaṃ anuññātaṃ,
- tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ macchamaṃsaṃ – adiṭṭhaṃ asutaṃ aparisaṅkita”nti.
The Buddha replied, “No, Devadatta.
- Those who wish may stay in the wilderness, and those who wish may live near inhabited areas.
- Those who wish may eat only almsfood, and those who wish may accept invitational meals.
- Those who wish may be rag-robe wearers, and those who wish may accept robe-cloth from householders.
- I have allowed the foot of a tree as resting place for eight months of the year,
- as well as fish and meat that are pure in three respects: one hasn’t seen, heard, or suspected that the animal was specifically killed to feed a monastic.”
Why don’t vegans oppose agriculture where millions of insects and billions of micro animals are killed directly and indirectly. (ploughing, pesticides, insecticides)?
Why don’t vegans oppose vegetarian meal where millions of insects and billions of micro animals are killed to produce a plate of grains & vegetables?
Why don’t vegans oppose any industry that digs soil (building construction, pottery etc) where millions of insects and billions of micro animals are killed?
Why don’t vegans oppose “cooking any food” where millions of micro animals are killed?
Why don’t vegans oppose “eating any food” where prepared food contains millions of micro animals?
All the above contribute to death of very higher number of animals than does by “eating allowed meat”.
Do vegans disregard the numbers and care only about lager animals? Even if they consider a “chicken” is equal to 10 insects or 100 micro animals, still it matters.
Yet I appreciate the compassionate vegans because they care about others and Kamma.
Niganthas care more about this and they don’t even walk without sweeping infront of their legs. They don’t shave or cut their hair even.
Even the Phippali (Venerable Mahakassapa) and his wife’s (Bhadda Kapilani) ordinations happened because they wanted to get rid of assumed Kamma happens by their lay industries (agriculture).
Didn’t say must eat.
We oppose meat industry which actually uses the majority of these farmlands. If one cares about indirect death from harvesting, all the more, go vegan, or better yet go fruits only, but that’s a bit much for many.
Yes, some vegans are actually asking vegetarians to go vegan. Vegans for animal compassion cannot accept insects as alternatives.
Perhaps they do? Wow, I never thought about this.
I think microbes are off the table, possibly like us on the no killing precepts.
Really? As mentioned above, meat still has a higher indirect kill footprint.
Eating meat then isn’t the same thing as eating meat now though, that’s an issue. Eating meat back then wasn’t an environmental hazard, it didn’t imply the cruelty we subjugate animals to today.
More relevant it is to discuss whether torturing animals is allowable or not, which is what eating meat today represents as opposed to what it was in the old days.
More relevant it is to discuss whether it’s okay to torture human beings with heat waves and water shortage, which is what eating meat today represents as opposed to what it was in the old days.
Understanding that eating meat today and cultivating a tolerance for eating meat implies cultivating a tolerance for these practices, how would Buddha react?
I highly suspect that Buddha would lead the way to make all of his followers be vegan for environmental reasons, if he were still alive today. Just like he wasn’t afraid of being anti-animal sacrifice back in the day, even when it is commonplace.
Well torturing and killing is aksuala kamma patha - back then or now. It will give unpleasant results.
You say that 'it didn’t imply the cruelty we subjugate animals to today".
I would have thought the killing of animals in those days was still pretty bad in some cases.
Here is an excerpt from the Dhammapada Atthakattha
Idha socetīti imaṃ dhammadesanaṃ satthā veḷuvane viharanto cundasūkarikaṃ nāma purisaṃ ārabbha kathesi.
So ¶ kira pañcapaṇṇāsa vassāni sūkare vadhitvā khādanto ca vikkiṇanto ca jīvikaṃ kappesi. Chātakāle sakaṭena vīhiṃ ādāya janapadaṃ gantvā ekanāḷidvenāḷimattena gāmasūkarapotake ¶ kiṇitvā sakaṭaṃ pūretvā āgantvā pacchānivesane vajaṃ viya ekaṃ ṭhānaṃ parikkhipitvā tattheva tesaṃ nivāpaṃ ropetvā, tesu nānāgacche ca sarīramalañca khāditvā vaḍḍhitesu yaṃ yaṃ māretukāmo hoti, taṃ taṃ āḷāne niccalaṃ bandhitvā sarīramaṃsassa uddhumāyitvā bahalabhāvatthaṃ caturassamuggarena pothetvā, ‘‘bahalamaṃso jāto’’ti ñatvā mukhaṃ vivaritvā antare daṇḍakaṃ datvā lohathāliyā pakkuthitaṃ uṇhodakaṃ mukhe āsiñcati. Taṃ kucchiṃ pavisitvā pakkuthitaṃ karīsaṃ ādāya adhobhāgena nikkhamati, yāva thokampi karīsaṃ atthi, tāva āvilaṃ hutvā nikkhamati, suddhe udare acchaṃ anāvilaṃ hutvā nikkhamati. Athassa avasesaṃ udakaṃ piṭṭhiyaṃ āsiñcati. Taṃ kāḷacammaṃ uppāṭetvā gacchati. Tato tiṇukkāya lomāni jhāpetvā tikhiṇena asinā sīsaṃ chindati. Paggharaṇataṃ lohitaṃ bhājanena paṭiggahetvā maṃsaṃ lohitena madditvā pacitvā puttadāramajjhe nisinno khāditvā sesaṃ vikkiṇāti. Tassa imināva niyāmena jīvikaṃ kappentassa pañcapaṇṇāsa vassāni atikkantāni ¶ . Tathāgate dhuravihāre vasante ekadivasampi pupphamuṭṭhimattena pūjā vā kaṭacchumattaṃ bhikkhadānaṃ vā aññaṃ vā kiñci puññaṃ nāma nāhosi. Athassa sarīre rogo uppajji, jīvantasseva ¶ avīcimahānirayasantāpo upaṭṭhahi. Avīcisantāpo nāma yojanasate ṭhatvā olokentassa akkhīnaṃ bhijjanasamattho pariḷāho hoti. Vuttampi cetaṃ –
Here, the teacher (the Buddha), while residing in Veluvana, spoke about a man named Cunda the pig butcher, saying:
It is said that he maintained his livelihood for fifty-five years by killing, eating, and selling pigs. During times of famine, he would take rice in a cart and go to the countryside, buying village piglets at a rate of one or two bundles each. Returning with his cart filled, he would enclose a spot in his backyard as if it were a pen, and right there, he would plant their feed. As the pigs grew, eating various plants and body filth, he would tie up the one he wanted to kill in a stall and beat it with a four-cornered club to make the flesh swell. Knowing that the flesh was swollen, he would open its mouth, insert a stick, and pour hot water boiled in an iron pot into its mouth. The water would enter the stomach, dissolve the dung, and come out from below as clear water when the stomach was clean. Then he would pour the remaining water over its back, peel off the black skin, burn the hair with a torch, and cut off the head with a sharp knife. Catching the flowing blood in a vessel, he would knead the meat with blood, cook it, and sit down to eat it with his family, selling the rest.
Great. So it was a pretty gruesome affair throughout all times?
I’d like to point out Venerable @bksubhuti’s remark that “allowable, not good” part. Just because something is allowable, shouldn’t mean it’s good or we shouldn’t abandon it now that it’s gone to even more gruesome lengths (and potentially, hurting us).
And the food was rather scarce in the day, compared to now. People used to die of hunger, now we die because of obesity. Food is not scarce and alternatives are easy to come by for the most part. Of course, exceptions don’t make the rule.
Perhaps for someone strictly observing CT, the answer should be “Yes, it’s [technically] allowed.” Does it mean we shouldn’t listen to our conscience and discuss the matter further, heeding our hearts and reason?
Yes bhante, but could we find any clue about why the Blessed One didn’t say “Those who wish may eat only vegetarian food” like in the first three examples?
This is the problem that the above monk raised. There are variety of industries (water, soil, air etc. pollution) that indirectly contribute to the death of millions of insects other than the meat industry. Why vegetarians or vegans usually don’t focus on that?
Micro animals (excluding micro plants etc) are disregarded by the Buddhist logic. But how can vegetarians disregard it by their logic of indirect killing?
There are lands and property aquired by governments by killing many human beings in war. Do vegetarians boycott using those lands and property? This is more serious than the case of animals.
And there are property (roads, buildings) constructed by governments using forceful labour of prisoners. Do vegetarians boycott using those property?
Many of the “Catupaccaya” (lands, property, clothes, food and medicine) offered to the monks by lay people have been bought by money earned from “Miccha ajiva” (liquor, bribery, thefts, violence etc). Do vegetarian monks boycott using those property?
In short, why disproportionate attention?
You can critique any social justice movement by this. If everyone must care about everything to care about something, then no social justice movement can move. As far as I know, vegans opposes the leather industry, animal testing, pets even, etc, things connected to animals. You can also directly ask them this in r/vegan in reddit. I am not so into vegan that I can speak on all of their behalf. I am vegan for environmental reasons first and foremost.
If I recall, if per chance you had some meat in your bowl, you would feed the dogs your leftover meat. So basically, it is a personal diet preference choice and has no ethics involved.
When something is dead and already dead without the intention of feeding the monk, it is “clean”.
You can do what you want. As I said before , I have been a veg for many years as a layperson. Most of my monk life has been at veg monasteries. I feel most comfortable eating a veg diet. However, when it comes to alms.or other people serving me, I usually eat what is there.
I think you can benefit from this practice of practicality and asubha of eating and being easy to support and contentedness. The latter which is a prerequisite for loving-kindness.
Even when the animal is killed specifically for a monk, it wouldn’t matter if the monk didn’t know it.
Even when the monk knew it, it wouldn’t matter if he didn’t eat it and give it to another monk.
That’s what the texts say.
Bhante, actually the problem of vegetarians is not their compassion, but their arguements against the texts.
In Theravada, kamma is “cetana” and not who is the animal killed for.
If one’s mind didn’t have any ill-will, then no kamma of violence would happen.
Agreed. I draw the line at modifying the texts and dhamma for veganism.
As I described above, there’re some merits of being self consistent.
In strict Islamic countries there are no pigs and hence no killing of pigs - as it is against the code of Islam to consume Pork.
Maybe this could be made a rule worldwide - or perhaps everyone could be convinced not to eat pig meat.
It wouldn’t make much difference because the conditions to be born as an animal cannot be changed. The patisandhi citta (rebirth consciousness) is akusala vipaka. Thus, even if there were no pigs, those beings are reborn as animals or insects of some type and experience the harsh conditions that an unfortunate rebirth entails.
The Buddhist way is to get to the causes - the ignorance, wrong view and desire that leads to rebirth - rather than trying to placate the symptoms.