user10691: In the Kammapatha sutta AN 3.164(A i 297) a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows :

Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.{1} Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if
one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell.


Note

one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available,
cannot be carried out without approving their killing.


https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html
It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established.
(As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot).
With mettā.

user20692: Speaking clinically, if you're buying meat, even if you're not killing the animal yourself, you're encouraging the person you're buying the meat from to kill the meat.
So, if you encourage a man to lie, or to cheat on his wife, or to commit murder, even though you do none of this yourself, are you without guilt if he does as you encouraged?

user20705: Trying to pretend that buying meat does not equate to killing is a complete cop out. My opinion is that when I eat meat, I have effectively killed the animal myself.
However if you genuinely need meat to remain healthy then I would continue to do so, while choosing products that are as compassionately produced as possible and minimise suffering. e.g. choose organically raised free range chickens and outdoor raised animals, or eat only fish which is a less sentient animal. It would be better to position your mind as close to the animal as possible, rather than trying to distance yourself from it.

user17628: The use of left-handed arguments to justify consumption of meat and, by extension, the killing of hapless animals cannot be accepted by anyone who claims to follow the Buddha. I think that is so plain and simple, convoluted logic notwithstanding. About the Buddha eating pork, the historical evidence is vague at best. He died of dysentery after consuming sūkaramaddava which was some kind of a mushroom, a delicacy in that area,  that incidentally pigs too were very fond of. However, some historians have translated sūkaramaddava as 'tender, soft pork'. Sūkara, as we all know, stands for a pig but, my understanding is that the Buddha, one who laid such great stress on non-violence and was vehemently against Brahmins conducting animal sacrifice, would never have even remotely tolerated the killing of animals.

user471: Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".
According to the Theravada school of Buddhism (and possibly also other schools), it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.
Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.
As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.
To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.
But what about the verse you quoted?

Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.

Asking the butcher or chef to slaughter a specific live animal for you, would be inciting others to kill.
I don't see buying meat at the supermarket as approving destroying life, because it is done after the killing was done i.e. you're just buying frozen meat that's already dead long before you arrived at the supermarket.
Instead, I would refer to AN 5.177:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business
in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in."

I would say "approving destruction of life" would be businesses that support the meat industry e.g. restaurants that buy frozen meat, chefs who cook frozen meat, logistics businesses that transport frozen meat, banks funding butchers and so on. They are engaging in a "business in meat" in my opinion, without doing the actual killing, and that is approving the destruction of life.

user20852: First Theravada monk do not cook, they alms round, hence they do not purchase meat.  They eat meat that was given and must qualified by not seeing killing, not hearing killing, not suspect killing is for him.  So, your question is towards Buddhist layperson I think.
As Buddhist follower, a layperson practices minimum 5 precepts, for us to avoid bad kamma. Purchase of meat for consumption is not a bad kamma, because we purchase a dead body.  However, we do not purchase by instructing the killing e.g. this chicken to be kill and I buy later.  We just purchase whatever already becoming a dead body.
Do Buddhist approving killing because we purchase meat? No we do not approve killing and we do not have to stop from purchase meat.  Buddhist do not approve killing, but we cannot stop others from killing and animal (even human) from being killed.  Even Buddhist go vegetarian, animal still die because car, kill for fertilizer, kill for being too many, etc.  Even Buddhist do not purchase meat, we stay in a house, to build a house kills animal & insects; we drive car, a car kill many animal or human on the road, etc...
Thus, trying to establish a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat, should NOT be at the context of Buddhism, because it is not relevant, not kamma related.
As a layperson, if vegetarian helps you, you should, it is a good practice for you, and it avoid more animal being killed, it is a good deed.  As a human, I try hard to avoid eating meat and purchase meat, but I knew it is not a requirements as Buddhist.

user-1: 
"Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)... I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not heard, or suspected (that living beng has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)..."
Furthermore, the Buddha added: "If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances... (i) When he says:'Go and fetch that living being'... (ii) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter... (iii) When he says: 'Go and slaughter that living being'... (iv) When that living bieng experiences pain and grief on being slaughter... (v) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible..."


“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained in sensuality,
greedy for flavors,
mixed together with what’s impure, annihilationists,
discordant1 & indomitable:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are rough, pitiless,
eating the flesh off your back,betraying their friends,uncompassionate,
arrogant,
habitually ungenerous,
giving to no one:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Anger, intoxication,
stubbornness, hostility,
deceptiveness, resentment,
boasting, conceit & pride,
befriending those of no integrity:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those of evil habits,
debt-repudiators, informers,
cheats in trading, counterfeiters,
vile men who do evil things:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained toward beings,
taking what’s others’,
intent on injury,
immoral hunters, harsh, disrespectful:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are very greedy,
constantly intent
on hindering and killing;
beings who, after passing away, go to darkness,
fall headfirst into hell:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html


10691: <p>In the <strong>Kammapatha sutta</strong> <strong>AN 3.164(A i 297)</strong> a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.<strong>{1}</strong> Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if
one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Note</p>
<ol>
<li>one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available,
cannot be carried out without approving their killing.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html</a></p>
<p>It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established.</p>
<p>(As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot).</p>
<p>With mettā.</p>
 20692: <p>Speaking clinically, if you're buying meat, even if you're not killing the animal yourself, you're encouraging the person you're buying the meat from to kill the meat.</p>
<p>So, if you encourage a man to lie, or to cheat on his wife, or to commit murder, even though you do none of this yourself, are you without guilt if he does as you encouraged?</p>
 20705: <p>Trying to pretend that buying meat does not equate to killing is a complete cop out. My opinion is that when I eat meat, I have effectively killed the animal myself.
However if you genuinely need meat to remain healthy then I would continue to do so, while choosing products that are as compassionately produced as possible and minimise suffering. e.g. choose organically raised free range chickens and outdoor raised animals, or eat only fish which is a less sentient animal. It would be better to position your mind as close to the animal as possible, rather than trying to distance yourself from it.</p>
 17628: <p>The use of left-handed arguments to justify consumption of meat and, by extension, the killing of hapless animals cannot be accepted by anyone who claims to follow the Buddha. I think that is so plain and simple, convoluted logic notwithstanding. About the Buddha eating pork, the historical evidence is vague at best. He died of dysentery after consuming sūkaramaddava which was some kind of a mushroom, a delicacy in that area,  that incidentally pigs too were very fond of. However, some historians have translated sūkaramaddava as 'tender, soft pork'. Sūkara, as we all know, stands for a pig but, my understanding is that the Buddha, one who laid such great stress on non-violence and was vehemently against Brahmins conducting animal sacrifice, would never have even remotely tolerated the killing of animals.</p>
 471: <p>Please read &quot;<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5948/471">Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?</a>&quot;.</p>
<p>According to the Theravada school of Buddhism (and possibly also other schools), it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.</p>
<p>Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.</p>
<p>As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.</p>
<p>To summarize from that question:</p>
<ul>
<li>It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals</li>
<li>It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat</li>
<li>It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you</li>
<li>It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)</li>
<li>It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat</li>
</ul>
<p>Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.</p>
<p>But what about the verse you quoted?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and <strong>one approves of
destroying life</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Asking the butcher or chef to slaughter a specific live animal for you, would be inciting others to kill.</p>
<p>I don't see buying meat at the supermarket as approving destroying life, because it is done after the killing was done i.e. you're just buying frozen meat that's already dead long before you arrived at the supermarket.</p>
<p>Instead, I would refer to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.177</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, <strong>business
in meat</strong>, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.</p>
<p>&quot;These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would say &quot;approving destruction of life&quot; would be businesses that support the meat industry e.g. restaurants that buy frozen meat, chefs who cook frozen meat, logistics businesses that transport frozen meat, banks funding butchers and so on. They are engaging in a &quot;business in meat&quot; in my opinion, without doing the actual killing, and that is approving the destruction of life.</p>
 20852: <p>First Theravada monk do not cook, they alms round, hence they do not purchase meat.  They eat meat that was given and must qualified by not seeing killing, not hearing killing, not suspect killing is for him.  So, your question is towards Buddhist layperson I think.</p>
<p>As Buddhist follower, a layperson practices minimum 5 precepts, for us to avoid bad kamma. Purchase of meat for consumption is not a bad kamma, because we purchase a dead body.  However, we do not purchase by instructing the killing e.g. this chicken to be kill and I buy later.  We just purchase whatever already becoming a dead body.</p>
<p>Do Buddhist approving killing because we purchase meat? No we do not approve killing and we do not have to stop from purchase meat.  Buddhist do not approve killing, but we cannot stop others from killing and animal (even human) from being killed.  Even Buddhist go vegetarian, animal still die because car, kill for fertilizer, kill for being too many, etc.  Even Buddhist do not purchase meat, we stay in a house, to build a house kills animal &amp; insects; we drive car, a car kill many animal or human on the road, etc...</p>
<p>Thus, trying to establish a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat, should NOT be at the context of Buddhism, because it is not relevant, not kamma related.</p>
<p>As a layperson, if vegetarian helps you, you should, it is a good practice for you, and it avoid more animal being killed, it is a good deed.  As a human, I try hard to avoid eating meat and purchase meat, but I knew it is not a requirements as Buddhist.</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
<p>&quot;Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)... I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not heard, or suspected (that living beng has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)...&quot;
Furthermore, the Buddha added: &quot;If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances... (i) When he says:'Go and fetch that living being'... (ii) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter... (iii) When he says: 'Go and slaughter that living being'... (iv) When that living bieng experiences pain and grief on being slaughter... (v) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible...&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained in sensuality,
greedy for flavors,
mixed together with what’s impure, annihilationists,
discordant1 &amp; indomitable:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are rough, pitiless,
eating the flesh off your back,betraying their friends,uncompassionate,
arrogant,
habitually ungenerous,
giving to no one:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Anger, intoxication,
stubbornness, hostility,
deceptiveness, resentment,
boasting, conceit &amp; pride,
befriending those of no integrity:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those of evil habits,
debt-repudiators, informers,
cheats in trading, counterfeiters,
vile men who do evil things:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained toward beings,
taking what’s others’,
intent on injury,
immoral hunters, harsh, disrespectful:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are very greedy,
constantly intent
on hindering and killing;
beings who, after passing away, go to darkness,
fall headfirst into hell:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
<a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
