Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why did the Buddha allow his monks to eat meat?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
All cured within two weeks by reverting to a diet of grilled meats or fish with olive oil and lemon. sashimi, carpaccios, salads, shellfish, fresh fruit....result.... peace.
I joined this forum to discuss the commonalities of Buddhadharma.
I have had two main teachers. Neither of whom eats or ate an exclusively vegetarian diet. Neither of them expressed any interest in the matter.
I have no interest in what any other member eats. It is none of my business. It is irrelevant.
The Buddha's words as recorded in the Pali Canon do not address the issue other than to counsel against over or under eating.
Neither is it the business of other members what I eat. It is none of their business. It is irrelevant.
What we can say for sure is that according to the Pali Canon the Buddha was similarly indifferent to the content of what his followers ate..as long as they ate it in accordance to the Vinaya.
There are religions which place lunch central stage.
Buddhadharma in most of its forms does not.
The thread is not about food issues per se. It is called ' Why did the Buddha ALLOW his monks to eat meat.'
A question that you consistently fail to address in your replies.
I have addressed it.
He allowed his monks to eat meat because the eating or not eating of meat was not a core concern to him.
So, why do YOU think he allowed it seeker242 ?
Do let's.
before I need to edit/smack knuckles, okay?
However, it's quite obvious that meat was an issue to him. That is why he laid down strict circumstances of when it can and can not be eaten and that is why some particular types of meat were forbidden under any circumstances. If it was not an issue, he would not have called business in it "wrong livelihood". The issue of why the Buddha called business in meat wrong livelihood, is often conveniently overlooked.
The Pali Commentary to the relevant Sutta states: So according to the Pali Commentaries, business in meat means "having raised pigs or deer, etc., one sells them." which is trade in animals for slaughter.
That is why in several books and articles by learned monastics, the prohibiton against business in meat is equated to being a prohibition of trade in live animals for slaughter and nothing beyond that, eg. What the Buddha Taught by Ven. Walpola Rahula, The Buddha's Ancient Path by Ven. Piyadassi Maha Thera, Buddhism and Economic Justice by Ven. Rewata Dhamma, The Eightfold Path by Ven. Sucitto.
Therefore, the Buddha was here concerned with laypeople engaged in the actual act of slaughtering animals or raising them to be slaughtered. The prohibition against business in meat was thus mentioned specifically due to the prevalence of herdsmen/cattle farmers in India during that time. So the fact that this prohibition was mentioned does not show that Buddha had a big concern for meat buying and meat eating amongst laypeople.
Please also consider this excerpt from Orthodox Chinese Buddhism: A Contemporary Chan Master's Answers to Common Questions (2007) by Dharma Master Sheng Yen, founder of the Dharma Drum lineage of Chan Buddhism: Basically, in the second paragraph, Master Sheng Yen seems to be speaking about Buddhism in general and not the practice of any particular school. If merely for social reasons (not even medical reason is needed!), one can be "excused for eating meat" and if purchasing meat of previously slaughtered animals is "permitted", I think it is quite clear that even Master Sheng Yen, who is a learned Mahayana monk, believes that the issue of meat eating was not actually that big a concern of the Buddha. If Master Sheng Yen believes that Buddha gave a big concern about meat eating and meat buying, then certainly a much higher criteria such as medical requirements would be needed to excuse the eating of meat. Also, he would not have said that buying of meat was "permitted" which implies that doing so is more or less a blameless act.
As far as the business in meat comments go, that is interesting. I will have to look into that further. Although, I find it difficult to believe that a modern day butcher shop, who purchases carcases from a slaughterhouse to sell, does not fall under that description.
:om:
Most native Tibetan/Nepalese Buddhists eat meat.
It's a necessary tactic, as vegetables in abundance are not always available....
So I'm informed....
What we see in developed nations is a higher rate of the diseases that come with an older population...and that's because we live longer !
And many medics are saying ( next time I am at work I will dig out the references ) that the next few decades are going to see a time bomb in the shape of degenerative conditions brought about by the adoption of a long term vegan diet ..which is unprecedented in terms of the western metabolism. There is already a steady stream of reports of CNS damage caused directly by a vegan diet..I encountered one myself a year or two ago, referred for mental health reasons but whose confusional state turned out to be the result of being chronically malnourished.
Most native Tibetan/Nepalese Buddhists eat meat.
It's a necessary tactic, as vegetables in abundance are not always available....
So I'm informed....
And most Japanese and Cambodian Mahayanist Monks are omnivores even though they do have alternatives..although most Japanese prefer fish.
But more seriously, what you are saying is simply the Fallacy of Popularity argument - ie, because most people do/think something, it is correct/superior. Not so.
So let that be an end to it.
Thanks to all who contributed.