Once, after many stories had been told about the evils of meat eating, Drukpa Kunleg said:

It is said that the Buddha taught how wrong it is to eat fish, pigs, and garlic. To that I will add that in the general Mahayana, the Buddha forbids the eating of any kind of meat because it weakens compassion and because there is a danger that the consumption of meat is harmful to the lives of those who eat it and might even render them mentally defective. Specifically, however, it is said in all the sutras and tantras that all beings have been our parents. This is something one can feel and be convinced of - they have all been our parents from beginning less time. If we piled up the bones of all who have been our fathers, or gathered together the milk that all those who have been our mothers have lavished upon us, the triple world itself would not be big enough to contain it all. And if people were really to think about it, who would be able to eat the flesh of their own parents and children?

People think that it is enough that the Shravakas have no desire for flesh and refrain from improper meat. And excusing themselves by appealing to texts such as: "If Shravakas refrain from meat that is permitted (namely, pure in the three ways) they are behaving like Devadatta," they eat meat. For example, you wouldn't say - would you? - that a woman who's been ignored by three sex maniacs is viable goods. So it's not all right - is it? - to eat meat that has been hawked (and rejected) in three markets? * If people casuistically stick too the literal sense and ignore the meaning of the teaching, they are wrong.

* This is an approximate translation of the following ‘di la mtshungs pa zhig zhun/stu shar po gsum ‘khor zhig la byas e chog mi chog na. The meaning of the passage is uncertain.

(Source: FB p. 83-84)