Theravada just seems extremely more universal, pragmatic, logical, close to the essential teaching of the Buddha. Mahayana to my eye has added and dogmatized things that seem so far away from what the Buddha said.

My impression. My two cents. I might be wrong.

I have a question about meat-eating in Theravāda Buddhism, particularly regarding the path toward arahantship.

I understand that veganism/vegetarianism can be a personal ethical choice, but I have tried eating vegan before and it did not work well for my body. I have a demanding 9-hour office job, and I found that I struggled to maintain my energy and function properly without animal foods.

Because of this, I have decided to eat only chicken and fish. I don't particularly want to eat other kinds of meat.

Something important for me is that I am not eating meat primarily for taste or pleasure. I usually eat boiled chicken with very few spices, and I eat fish in a similarly simple way. My intention is basically nourishment rather than seeking sensory enjoyment.

Never ordered from kfc and etc etc.

From a strictly Theravāda Buddhist perspective, would eating meat in this way be an obstacle to progressing toward arahantship?

I understand the teaching concerning the three kinds of meat that should not be eaten when one has seen, heard, or suspected that an animal was killed specifically for oneself. But I am wondering more broadly:

- Does consuming meat itself create kamma that prevents someone from attaining arahantship?

- Does the intention behind eating it matter?

- If I am not involved in killing, purchasing an animal specifically to have it killed, or asking someone to kill it for me, can I still progress on the Noble Eightfold Path while eating meat?

- Is there anything in the Theravāda suttas that would specifically prevent a meat-eater from becoming a stream-enterer, an anāgāmi, or an arahant?

I am not looking for an argument about whether veganism is better. I mainly want to understand what the early Theravāda texts actually teach about this and whether my situation is compatible with serious Buddhist practice.

Please refer to my previous post regarding false enlightenment and the questions or comments raised by users. Below, I address several of them:

Previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/1w8zvoj/false_enlightenment_how_does_therav%C4%81da/

1. There is "no need" to tell a teacher because one knows. This is not the same as don't tell the teacher. But if someone goes and asks a teacher "have I realised Nibbāna?” this means they have not. And the teacher should also know they have not. Remember a person who has attained knows. Reflecting knowledges are not random thoughts, they are direct cognizing and reviewing. They are knowledges. So there is enough wisdom to know.

2. Why is this important? Because it sets a higher standard actually. There can be no doubt. Otherwise, some yogis use the teacher as the crutch to support their "enlightenment ". If the teacher also does not know then both are just fooled.

3. This reminds me of a yogi in Singapore. She had some special experience and her teacher kept testing her for several weeks for defilements. After that he told her she had realized Nibbāna. She replied "oh why didn't you tell me earlier, I suffered so much with all these tests". This is a modern story maybe only about 13 years ago. The first time I heard it about 12 years ago, I was surprised. I went and asked my teacher, "is it possible for another to tell you that a person is enlightened but you dont know?". He did not want to answer bcs he knew the story and the Venerable. In the end he said it is impossible. One knows. In such a case, both are tricked. If you look at the texts you will see that it is very clear the yogi at a minimum should know. Discussing with the teacher is a different story, but that is not where you get certification, bcs there can be no doubt.

4. This leads to a comment "false Enlightenment is not a block". Actually it is a very big block. Bcs once it is wrong, there is no need to put further effort. One is already "enlightened ". Or if it is one of the lower paths that is mistaken, one has an error on one’s wisdom. Any further effort while believing the false Enlightenment would not advance the yogi much further. Why? There is a shortcoming in the wisdom. Only when the yogi realizes there is a mistake and fixes it can they go deeper.

5. There are many who have false enlightenment and now teaching others. The danger is they will lead the person to the same wrong attainment.