According to Osho, meat-eating is not a moral issue but a fact of survival: life eats life. With today’s population, strict vegetarianism would mean mass starvation; even milk is “non‑vegetarian,” and fasting consumes one’s own flesh. The true ideal—no killing—will come only through science (synthetic foods), not sermons. Until then, eat consciously, minimize harm, and drop hypocritical absolutism.
For now, living means eating other life, so be honest and gentle with your food choices, and trust science may one day let us eat without killing.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
A friend has asked: Osho, are you a samyavadi—are you a communist?
If I were opposed to the great ones, it would be hard to find anyone who loves the great ones more than I do. I am not even an opponent of Godse—so how could I be an opponent of Gandhi? But when I criticize some great person, I am not opposing the person; I am trying to shake the peg to which you are tied, so that you may be free. You praise the peg so much that your praise becomes the reason for your bondage. Therefore I try to break even your praises. Do not mistakenly think I have any enmity. But our understanding is so small—so very small. And the understanding of the prejudiced is always small. One who has a doctrine has no understanding, because he is already bound and looks at the world only through that fixed lens. Difficulties arise. He cannot grasp what is being…
Osho, is violence against animals justified from a human‑utilitarian point of view?
Hmm, this is a very fine question. Is violence against animals justified from a human‑utilitarian point of view? It is not only from the human‑utilitarian point of view that it is considered justified; from all other, lower points of view it can appear justified. Violence against animals is not justified only from a human‑utilitarian standpoint—yet from every other standpoint beneath the human it is. Therefore, on planes below the human we neither call animal‑killing unjust, nor can we. On that plane, life itself is everything, and whatever is done for the sake of survival is considered right. What, then, is the difference between animal and human? There is only one difference: the human has become conscious, awakened, self‑aware, self‑conscious. He has begun to see into things. For him, food is not as important as the means by which food comes. He can miss a meal once, but he cannot afford…
Osho, the Gita certainly emphasizes sattvic food for seekers, but nowhere does it explicitly forbid meat. And you have said meat is easy to digest—and that’s what doctors say, too. Then what obstacle does meat-eating create? For spiritual practice you have strongly stressed the usefulness of a vegetarian diet. But books indicate that many saints who attained through Sufi, Zen, and Tantra paths did not remain vegetarian. And in our own country, Paramhansa Ramakrishna always ate non-vegetarian food. What is the reason for this contradiction?
Then my vision is this: Ramakrishna is an exceedingly pure man. Therefore such a small impurity could not obstruct him. You may not be able to conceive this. Exceedingly pure. If you permit me, I would say: purer than Mahavira. Had Mahavira eaten meat or fish, he could not have attained the supreme. But Ramakrishna did. This means only this: the man is so pure that such a small impurity could not hinder him. Despite that impurity he crossed beyond. Understand it like this: you climb a mountain. The rule for mountain-climbing is that the less the load, the better. If you climb with loads of weight on your head, climbing becomes hard. You may abandon the idea or stop at some midway camp. But then a very powerful man, a Hercules, climbs the mountain with a heavy weight—and reaches the top. This man is not the rule. This Hercules…
Question: OSHO, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE LAW OF KARMA? In the first place there is no hell. In the second place, there is no law of nature that by eating meat you will go to hell, because if that is the case then all the animals and almost all men will be going to hell; heaven will be absolutely empty. And because all the animals are eating meat, there is no possibility for animals to grow towards higher consciousness. I used to say to Jaina monks, "You are preaching a stupid thing. You say that animals go on growing, moving upwards; finally they become man. How can they become man? If meat-eating throws people into hell, then how can meat-eating animals grow in consciousness and become men?
Question: BELOVED OSHO, THEN AN OLD MAN, A KEEPER OF AN INN, SAID, SPEAK TO US OF EATING AND DRINKING. AND HE SAID: WOULD THAT YOU COULD LIVE ON THE FRAGRANCE OF THE EARTH, AND LIKE AN AIR PLANT BE SUSTAINED BY THE LIGHT. BUT SINCE YOU MUST KILL TO EAT, AND ROB THE NEWLY BORN OF ITS MOTHER'S MILK TO QUENCH YOUR THIRST, LET IT THEN BE AN ACT OF WORSHIP, AND LET YOUR BOARD STAND AN ALTAR ON WHICH THE PURE AND THE INNOCENT OF FOREST AND PLAIN ARE SACRIFICED FOR THAT WHICH IS PURER AND STILL MORE INNOCENT IN MAN. WHEN YOU KILL A BEAST SAY TO HIM IN YOUR HEART: BY THE SAME POWER THAT SLAYS YOU, I TOO AM SLAIN; AND I TOO SHALL BE CONSUMED. FOR THE LAW THAT DELIVERED YOU INTO MY HAND SHALL DELIVER ME INTO A MIGHTIER HAND.