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?
karmablues
Veteran
The Pali Canon and Mahayana texts agree that the Buddha allowed his monks to eat certain kinds of meat.
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha said:
So why was meat eating allowed? In the Pali Canon it is clear that meat eating is not regarded as defiled behavior. In the Amagandha Sutta, a vegetarian Brahmin confronts Buddha Kassapa in regard to the evil of eating meat to which Buddha Kassapa replies as follows:
However, when we look at the Mahayana texts to determine why meat eating was allowed, the answers seem unsatisfactory.
In the Nirvana Sutra:
Since the Buddha is also revoking the allowance there is thus the question of how the situation has suddenly changed so as to make the allowance no longer necessary. This question is also left unanswered by the sutra.
Now when it comes to the Lankavatara Sutra, this is said:
So the reason for the allowance given in this sutra also seems unsatisfactory.
As for the Surangama Sutra, this is stated:
Another curious element is the assertion that India was a country where "vegetables do not grow". Is this an accurate description of India at that time? I think it should only apply to the mountainous areas of India. Even if there were no vegetables, then why didn't Buddha create magic vegetables for his monks to eat. By creating magic meat, wouldn't the Buddha cause the monks to think they were eating real meat and wouldn't that produce defiled states of mind in the monks as described in the Mahayana texts?
Again, the reason for the allowance given in this sutra is unsatisfactory.
In fact, when we look at the Mahayana texts' treatment on the issue of meat eating and use of animal products we can find a number of other inconsistencies and even conflicts. For example, let's take the issue of animal products.
In the Surangama Sutra, it is said:
We can take another example which is whether meat eating can be considered as equivalent to killing.
In the Lankavatara Sutra, it is said that:
So what does all of this imply? We see that there are inconsistencies and sometimes direct conflict among the various Mahayana texts dealing with the issue of meat eating and the use of animal products. Explanations given in the Mahayana texts about why monks were permitted to eat certain types of meat also seem to be unsatisfactory. So if one were to rely on the Mahayana texts to determine what were actually the Buddha's words on these matters, the existence of inconsistencies and conflicts could cause some confusion. And in answering the question of "Why did the Buddha allow his monks to eat meat" we could say that this question can be more satisfactorily answered by reference to the Pali Canon.
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha said:
"I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu."Such allowance of meat eating is acknowledged in the Mahayana texts but these texts also declare that the permission is being revoked and henceforth no meat eating is to be allowed whatsoever. In the Pali Canon there is no mention of Buddha revoking this allowance.
So why was meat eating allowed? In the Pali Canon it is clear that meat eating is not regarded as defiled behavior. In the Amagandha Sutta, a vegetarian Brahmin confronts Buddha Kassapa in regard to the evil of eating meat to which Buddha Kassapa replies as follows:
"Taking life, beating, cutting, binding... adultery; this is uncleanliness and not the eating of meat.So as far as the Pali Canon goes, the Buddha sees no direct connection between defiled states of the mind and meat eating which is, I believe, the main reason he allowed his monks to eat meat (with a few exceptions).
When men are rough and harsh, backbiting, treacherous, without compassion.... this is uncleanliness and not the eating of meat.
Anger, pride, obstinacy, antagonism.... this is uncleanliness and not the eating of meat.
When men are of bad morals, refuse to pay their debts.... this is uncleanliness and not the eating of meat.
When men attack living beings either because of greed or hostility and are always bent upon evil, they go to darkness after death and fall headlong into hell; this is uncleanliness and not the eating of meat."
However, when we look at the Mahayana texts to determine why meat eating was allowed, the answers seem unsatisfactory.
In the Nirvana Sutra:
Kasyapa said: "Why did you first allow the bhiksus to eat three kinds of pure meat?" "O Kasyapa! These three kinds of pure meat were so instituted following the need of the occasion."Here the Buddha is saying that there was some kind of necessity for the allowance. Unfortunately there is no elaboration of what this necessity was. One possibility is that in the mountainous areas there was a scarcity of fruits and vegetables. But if that was the case then surely the rule would have been formulated differently and be limited to monks living in areas where fruits and vegetables were not readily available.
Since the Buddha is also revoking the allowance there is thus the question of how the situation has suddenly changed so as to make the allowance no longer necessary. This question is also left unanswered by the sutra.
Now when it comes to the Lankavatara Sutra, this is said:
Some people will say: 'In other sutras, the Tathagata has allowed eating of three kinds of meat', they simply do not understand that the meaning of precepts is to stop meat eating gradually, so they will say that meat eating is allowed.Here, the reason is no longer about necessity, but rather to "stop meat eating gradually". This reason also seems unsatisfactory. First, limiting meat allowed to the three types would probably not prevent the monks from eating meat most of the time. It may have been more effective to restrict the times when meat eating would be allowed, eg. allowing pure meat to be consumed only on the first day of each week or something like that. Secondly, given that meat eating is considered as very evil behavior that could send one to hell, it doesn't make sense why the Buddha would opt for gradual elimination rather than an immediate, total ban. Were monks really so addicted to meat eating that it required gradual elimination? What about the ban on sexual intercourse? What's more difficult for a man, a celibate life or a vegetarian diet? I would say that in most cases it is a celibate life, but the Buddha set a total ban on sexual intercourse. Why not go for gradual elimination and specify certain types of pure women whom the monks would be allowed to copulate with?
So the reason for the allowance given in this sutra also seems unsatisfactory.
As for the Surangama Sutra, this is stated:
"I permit the bhiksus to eat only the five kinds of pure meat. Such meat is actually the product of my transcendental power of transformation and not of animal slaughter. You, Brahman, live in a country where vegetables do not grow because it is too damp and hot and because of all the gravel and rock. I use my spiritual power of compassion to provide you with illusory meat to satisfy your appetite. How then, after my nirvana, how can you eat the flesh of living beings and so pretend to be my disciple?"So there is yet another different reason given for the allowance of pure meat. Here, the Buddha is saying that the meat the monks have been eating are actually magic meat created by him ie. fake meat that didn't really originate from a slaughtered animal. He says he does this out of compassion to satisfy the appetites of monks. This doesn't seem to be the way the Buddha usually teaches. While he does have limitless compassion, nonetheless, it is not usual for him to express this compassion by satisfying the sensual desires of his monks.
Another curious element is the assertion that India was a country where "vegetables do not grow". Is this an accurate description of India at that time? I think it should only apply to the mountainous areas of India. Even if there were no vegetables, then why didn't Buddha create magic vegetables for his monks to eat. By creating magic meat, wouldn't the Buddha cause the monks to think they were eating real meat and wouldn't that produce defiled states of mind in the monks as described in the Mahayana texts?
Again, the reason for the allowance given in this sutra is unsatisfactory.
In fact, when we look at the Mahayana texts' treatment on the issue of meat eating and use of animal products we can find a number of other inconsistencies and even conflicts. For example, let's take the issue of animal products.
In the Surangama Sutra, it is said:
"Bhikshus who do not wear silk, leather boots, furs, or down from this country or consume milk, cream, or butter can truly transcend this world... Both physically and mentally one must avoid the bodies and by-products of living beings, by neither wearing them nor eating them. What I have said here is Buddha’s teaching. Any explanation counter to it is the teaching of Papiyan (demon king)"However, in the Nirvana Sutra the following is stated:
Kasyapa said: "If the Tathagata means to prohibit the eating of meat, such things as milk, cream, fresh butter, clarified butter, and sarpirmanda, all kinds of clothing, silk cloth, horse-shoe shell, hide and leather... should not be received."So in this case, we have a direct conflict between two sutras. One says that animal products such as milk, leather and silk must be avoided while another says that believing so would be muddling up the teachings of the Buddha with that of Jainism. So which is correct?
[The Buddha replied:] "O good man! Do not muddle things up with what the Nirgranthas [Jains] say. Each of the prohibitions which the Tathagata lays down has a different meaning."
We can take another example which is whether meat eating can be considered as equivalent to killing.
In the Lankavatara Sutra, it is said that:
"Mahamati, if no one eats meat, then no one kills living beings for food. Because there are people who wish to eat meat, if they have no meat to eat they will go everywhere to buy meat, then the others who wish to earn money will kill living beings and sell the flesh to the meat eaters. The killings are for the buyers, thus the buying is the same as the killing."However, in the Brahma Net Sutra, meat eating is listed as one of the 48 secondary precepts while killing is listed as one of the 10 major precepts. The major precept of killing is described as follows:
.....
"Hunters, butchers, meat eaters and the like are atrocious and hardhearted, they can do what others cannot have the heart to do. When they see the living beings whose bodies are fresh, fat or fleshy, they would think of eating them."
"A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature."Therefore, since meat eating entails just a breach of a secondary precept, it follows that meat eating does not amount to killing otherwise, meat eating would have to be listed as a major precept rather than just a secondary precept. Therefore, this is in conflict with the Lankavatara Sutra which sees meat eating as equivalent to killing.
So what does all of this imply? We see that there are inconsistencies and sometimes direct conflict among the various Mahayana texts dealing with the issue of meat eating and the use of animal products. Explanations given in the Mahayana texts about why monks were permitted to eat certain types of meat also seem to be unsatisfactory. So if one were to rely on the Mahayana texts to determine what were actually the Buddha's words on these matters, the existence of inconsistencies and conflicts could cause some confusion. And in answering the question of "Why did the Buddha allow his monks to eat meat" we could say that this question can be more satisfactorily answered by reference to the Pali Canon.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Question of Vegetarianism and Diet in Pāli Canon
So since there are different authors there are different views on vegetarianism. I notice that in a single sutra there are not contradictory views, say the surangama doesn't contradict itself but it may contradict other sutras.
It is not hidden that there are different authors. Unlike the Bible it is not said that it was all directed by an omniscient God.
Just look at the diversity on NB. If each of us wrote a sutra about what we learned there would bound to be contradictions.
Also, it could have been possible to allow the monks to accept meat, but then to avoid eating it once he is back at the temple. If he doesn't get enough vegetable almsfood then perhaps an exception can also be made for monks to be cook their own vegetable dishes for meals in the case that insufficient vegetable food is gathered during almsround. However, I think the Buddha didn't bother with any of this because since meat eating is not seen as a direct cause for defiled states of the mind, then he might as well just allow the monks to eat the three types of pure meat.
Boom!
Boom!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meat-Fix-Lifetime-Healthy-Eating/dp/1849541396
This would have been the case for when he travelled to new places to teach.
Certainly things would have been slightly different once he was well known.
In the Mahayana, the Dharma travelled to different countries with a better framework of support, some monasteries cooked their own food and some had lay communities bringing them daily meals, no more alms trips. So then they were better placed to suggest the omission of meat.
Vegetarian diet brings a lot of advantages, one developes a much clearer frame of mind, essential for better meditative practices. Also, humans reek of their diet, in any interaction with beings of the other realms, a more neutral smell would be advantageous
In Chinese folklore, we often hear tales of smelling the departed first before all else.
Bam!
PS What do you means, man "IS" a carnivore? Clearly, many people AREN'T (and are healthier as a result - here's just one of many many studies: http://yhoo.it/14M1yjo). What's your reasoning, or is it more a gut feeling kinda thing?
:scratch:
As far as my reasoning, that's one of the few things I prefer not to respond to.
Your link led to nothing, but I've read any number of such reports.
As far as, "Clearly, many people AREN'T" -- 95% of the people in the world are not vegetarians.
If you gave me the choice, I'd prefer to sit and chat with an "evangelical Christian", rather than an "evangelical vegetarianism".
As far as my reasoning, that's one of the few things I prefer not to respond to.
Your link led to nothing, but I've read any number of such reports.
As far as, "Clearly, many people AREN'T" -- 95% of the people in the world are not vegetarians.
If you gave me the choice, I'd prefer to sit and chat with an "evangelical Christian", rather than an "evangelical vegetarianism".
People get very defensive about this, not sure why
Namaste
Namaste
It is a personal choice. Not a Buddhist choice. Unless you belong to one of the Chinese sanghas where a vegetarian diet is a condition of membership
However, as time has gone on, I realise more and more, the moral value and rationale behind not eating meat, and that becomes more important to me on a daily basis.
However, it's not for me to try to influence or dictate what I think others should or should not do.
It's for the individual to decide for themselves what they feel would be a satisfactory decision for them, to make.
Any interpretation of Mahayana sutras from any different standpoint is going to be able to find and question the contradictions and inconsistencies - Interpretation of Mahayana Sutras from a Mahayana standpoint is going to arrive at a different (and understandably biased) slant!
So what does all of this imply? hat this question can be more satisfactorily answered by reference to the Pali Canon.
It implies that when you try to interpret Mahayana sutras from a Theravada standpoint, you are concocting a recipe for disaster.
The HHDL recommends that everyone become a vegetarian.
</blockquot
Maybe. But he himself eats meat. I went to a reception hosted by the Dean of Westminster the last time that the Dalai Lama spoke at Westminster Abbey and we all ( including the DL ) tucked into a chicken dish prepared by His Holiness's chefs.
Personally, I am vegetarian at home and out in restaurants, but if I'm a guest at someone's home I'll eat whatever they've prepared. I'm comfortable with it and it avoids coming across as ungrateful or preachy demanding something vegetarian - which I believe is probably the same reasoning Buddha had, if someone gives you food you should accept is with gratitude, even if it's something you don't like or don't particularly want to eat.
Biologically speaking, humans evolved to eat meat, but we don't actually require it in our diets, it's just that our ancestors couldn't find enough veg to sustain themselves on the savannas of Africa, they needed to eat meat to survive. Ideally, if you want to eat meat, then it should be the side dish and veggies the main part of the meal, in Western culture though it's the other way around which is why so many of us are unhealthy.
People are living longer, but they're also living longer with problems such as obesity, heart disease and high blood pressure. We're also surviving the consequences of our unhealthy lifestyle, such as heart attacks, strokes and cancer.
Supreme Head of the Gelug Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism (the first Ganden Tripa was Tsongkapa). Monks of the Gelug school, such as HHDL, hold 253 Vinaya rules which happens to be the most amongst all lineages of Vinaya still in use.
The regime I'm following at the moment (and in all likelihood, will continue to adhere to for good) seems to suggest, through accredited trials and global research, that those following a similar regime will prolong their lives considerably....
Hell, I'll still be Moderating here when I'm 120!
We are all individuals with different metabolic needs.
I have had several long periods as a vegetarian and did all I could to research the most healthy diet for myself..my wife is perfectly healthy as a veggie..but every time I have tried I have become ill. I went vegan for two years. I went macrobiotic. I followed a veggie mediteranean diet. Every time I suffered chronic, vague, ill health, until I added meat to my diet again.
They identified 9 common traits of the lifestyle of these people. A mostly plant based is one of them, along with natural exercise, stress reduction activities, some type of spirituality, close family relations and some others. It's an interesting program I think! www.bluezones.com
Especially when I start comparing them.
I'm kind to myself, so I eat meat.
I'm kind to myself, so I don't eat too much meat, just what my body needs.
I think going veggie was easier for me because I hadn't eaten red meat since I was 7 or 8 anyway, so cutting out the chicken and fish wasn't so big a deal.
The fact is though that he DID allow it.
And by allowing it he made eating meat a lifestyle choice open to all of those Buddhists, and they are a majority, who do not belong to a Sangha where vegetarianism is prescribed and normative.
On the other hand he did not make the eating of meat, or any other foodstuffs compulsory.
For his Sangha he said for them to eat what they are given...including in one famous case using the illustration of eating a leper's finger if one happened to fall into the begging bowl !
For laypeople he had no dietary guidelines at all that we know about apart from not eating too much or too little.
At the same time, HHDL says animals have the same rights to live and not be killed, as humans do. In other traditions, it is dictated quite strictly for this reason.
I do know that he eats meat. No ifs. No buts. It is a fact.
It may very well be this is the price I am paying for something in a past life, and for which I may continue to pay. Who knows? We all have our individual struggles, and one size does not fit all. In my estimation what the Buddha, Jesus and Krishna taught are ideals and goals to be striven for as best we can. Where one man excels another man fails. If we could all excel, we wouldn't be here to bandy it about. We'd all have reached nirvana, moksha, Heaven or whatever one calls it.
Little or no dairy. ( I love cheese but it makes my nose run ) grilled fish or meat,or seafood with conservatively cooked veg and salads dressed with oil and a little lemon. Lots of fruit, honey. The odd glass of wine or beer. Lots of Yorkshire Gold tea...
If I stray far from that I sneeze and fart and feel lousy.
Which is not condusive to meditation practice...and not much fun for the longsuffering Mrs Citta either...
I can well believe that McCartney would consider that he has a mission to tell everyone that they are wrong. He has been at it for years. Its what Freud called ' Reaction Formation' it became more noticeable following the death of his veggie wife.
Period.