How does the story of General Siha's Meal for the Buddha at Vaisali vindicate the Buddha? I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating.

Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page:
https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up

The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect.

I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?
Here is a version of the story as told by Ajahn Brahmavamso (&quot;a British Theravada Buddhist monk&quot;), in an an essay titled, What the Buddha said about eating meat:

Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning 'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha, together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

&quot;Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'...&quot; [1].

Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed, a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

&quot;Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.&quot; [2]

There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most interesting of these passages occurs etc.

I think that answers your questions: I think it's basically that meat was bought from the market, instead of animals &quot;killed on purpose for him&quot;.
You could probably find more references to the story using this Google search: vinaya siha meat

See also this explanation of meat-eating, in The Bhikkhus' Rules —
A Guide for Laypeople.
Another explanation I read (I don't remember where, at the moment) is that the Buddha wanted monks to be easy for the laity to support: i.e. not too demanding/fussy about what kind of food they will accept.