the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by budo »

Even for a wedding party it's not specifically slaughtered for you, unless you're living in a 2nd world country.

Fyi, the average beef you eat has already been dry or wet aged for months otherwise it would be extremely hard to eat.

The freshest animal life is usually seafood as it starts to stink fast, but even that is kept on ice.

So unless you're living in a 2nd world country, odds are nothing is killed for you specifically.
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by Volo »

You just ask the restaurant, where do they acquire meat. You are the one who is paying money, therefore you can make rules. I don't think it's such a big problem for them to buy meat at the market.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by chownah »

Aren't these rules for monks?
chownah
User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm
Location: Germany, Nong Bua Lamphu (Thailand)

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by AgarikaJ »

chownah wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:58 am Aren't these rules for monks?
chownah
Indeed. Full set of the respective rules here:

- https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/ ... Mv.VI.23.9
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17192
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by DNS »

Correct, the threefold rule is for monks. And that is why there is so much debate and controversy on the subject of meat eating in Buddhism. Obviously from supply and demand, when a lay person purchases meat, there is less supply, the grocer orders more meat, more animals get killed at the slaughterhouse. Yet, the Buddha did not directly discuss this. Of course there are numerous suttas praising ahimsa, not killing or causing to kill, but the Buddha never said "don't buy meat" and thus, the controversy. (And in fact there is a sutta where General Siha orders meat and the Buddha did not condemn that action.)

I'm vegetarian, mostly vegan, but if I invite someone out to a restaurant, I don't tell them what they can order or not order. If there is any kammic effect, it would be on them, as the one placing the order, even though I am paying. So I would go with that perspective at the wedding party too and not impose your vegetarianism on the wedding guests.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by budo »

DNS wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:49 pm Obviously from supply and demand, when a lay person purchases meat, there is less supply, the grocer orders more meat, more animals get killed at the slaughterhouse.
The purpose of Buddhism isn't to make the world a better place (that's impossible), it's to escape it. I remember reading a sutta about views, something along the lines of if everyone was perfect there would be no Buddha nor Dhamma, but such a view is wrong view because it's not possible. The very existence of samsara rests on imperfection and ignorance, so trying to make the world a better place is a useless endeavour.

The rise of a Buddha is basically a fire emergency escape for those who are desperate enough to seek it. Those animals being slaughtered currently do not have the window of opportunity to escape, and one could argue that their slaughtering can result in a human rebirth that would allow them to escape (but not for the slaughterer of course).
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by dharmacorps »

I wouldn't worry about ordering these dishes in advance at a wedding party unless they are trying a "farm to table" or uber-organic thing which increases the risk they may actually be killing animals in advance at your request.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by chownah »

D1W1 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:19 am Hi all,

Buddhists are allowed to eat meat as long as it fulfills the "three rules":
It seems that the three rules are rules for monks. Since a wedding party is not specifically organized specifically for any monk which might attend then the meat served will not be from an animal killed specifically for any monk so the monk would be allowed to eat it....and of course the non-monks in attendance could eat it too since the three rules do not apply to them at all.

In other words, buddhists are allowed to eat meat (so it seems)....end of story.
chownah
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by Volo »

If a person knows, that his action would lead to killing of sentient beings, but still choses to do so, he accumulates bad kamma, irrelevant whether his final intention was killing or not. If he knows, that by ordering chicken in the restaurant, they would first kill the animal, he still accumulates bad kamma.

Buddha says to Jīvaka (lay person):
MN 55 wrote:Jīvaka, 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 slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. 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 oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.
He doesn't specify that this apples only for monks.

Also in Vinaya (BMC I):
BMC I wrote:Mv.V.10.10 discusses a case of this last instance, in which a depraved bhikkhu tells a layman that he has use for a certain calf’s hide, and the layman kills the calf for him. Because the bhikkhu did not give a specific command that the calf be killed, and yet the Buddha said that his action did come under this rule [i.e. rule prohibiting killing animals Pc 61], we can conclude that there is no room for kappiya-vohāra in this context. Whatever one says in hopes of inciting someone else to kill an animal would fulfill this factor. This rule thus differs from Pr 3, under which commanding covers only clear imperatives.
Although there is no direct command to kill, Buddha still counts it as killing.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by chownah »

Volo wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:41 am If a person knows, that his action would lead to killing of sentient beings, but still choses to do so, he accumulates bad kamma, irrelevant whether his final intention was killing or not. If he knows, that by ordering chicken in the restaurant, they would first kill the animal, he still accumulates bad kamma.

Buddha says to Jīvaka (lay person):
MN 55 wrote:Jīvaka, 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 slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. 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 oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.
He doesn't specify that this apples only for monks.
The entire sutta (mn55) is about the buddha and monks eating meat. The buddha is talking to jivaka about jivaka's question:
“Sir, I have heard this: ‘They slaughter living creatures specially for the ascetic Gotama. The ascetic Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared on purpose for him: this is a deed he caused.’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
.....and the buddha goes on to explain about monks eating meat.....it is all about mendicant's and disciple's and the buddha's eating of meat.

Anyone can go and read it here:https://suttacentral.net/mn55/en/sujato
chownah
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by Dhammanando »

Volo wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:41 am Buddha says to Jīvaka (lay person):
MN 55 wrote:Jīvaka, 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 slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. 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 oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.
He doesn't specify that this apples only for monks.
Nor does the text of the sutta specify the words in brackets: that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself.

It just says "when it is seen, heard or suspected," but without specifying what it is that one might see, hear or suspect. So when translators add some explanation in brackets they are either basing this on the commentary or just giving their own opinion. The commentary to the sutta does in fact limit the case to bhikkhus:
Diṭṭhādīsu 'diṭṭhaṃ' nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya migamacche vadhitvā gayhamānaṃ diṭṭhaṃ.
I.B. Horner translates in accordance with the commentary:
I, Jīvaka, say that in three cases meat may not be used: if it is seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed on purpose for a monk).
The translator that you quote above (Bhikkhu Bodhi) half follows the commentary but has either intentionally or inadvertently left out the stipulation that limits the case to bhikkhus.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by Volo »

chownah wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:04 am .....and the buddha goes on to explain about monks eating meat.....it is all about mendicant's and disciple's and the buddha's eating of meat.
Buddha could say something "I don't allow my monks to eat meat in three cases". But he said, what he said. If you want to insist there is nothing wrong for a lay person to eat meat from an animal slaughtered for him, it's up to you. For me the sutta is clear.
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by Volo »

Dhammanando wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:38 am Nor does the text of the sutta specify the words in brackets: that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself.
My post was more for the people who do not accept commentaries. If you accept commentaries and Abhidhamma, I think you would agree that doing actions which inevitably case an animal to be killed is a bad kamma, and should be avoided by both lay and monastics.
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by D1W1 »

But guests never book any menu, they just accept the invitation and come. How do you not impose vegetarian food to the guests and fufill the three requirements at the same time?
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: The "three rules" of eating meat

Post by D1W1 »

budo wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:28 am Even for a wedding party it's not specifically slaughtered for you, unless you're living in a 2nd world country.

Fyi, the average beef you eat has already been dry or wet aged for months otherwise it would be extremely hard to eat.

The freshest animal life is usually seafood as it starts to stink fast, but even that is kept on ice.

So unless you're living in a 2nd world country, odds are nothing is killed for you specifically.
I think it's irrelevant to think whether you live in 4th or 5th country, as long as the demand is spiking high the supply needs to be adjusted as well.
budo wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:04 pm

The purpose of Buddhism isn't to make the world a better place (that's impossible), it's to escape it. I remember reading a sutta about views, something along the lines of if everyone was perfect there would be no Buddha nor Dhamma, but such a view is wrong view because it's not possible. The very existence of samsara rests on imperfection and ignorance, so trying to make the world a better place is a useless endeavour.

The rise of a Buddha is basically a fire emergency escape for those who are desperate enough to seek it. Those animals being slaughtered currently do not have the window of opportunity to escape, and one could argue that their slaughtering can result in a human rebirth that would allow them to escape (but not for the slaughterer of course).
It's much easier to make this (human) world a worse place to live, it's much more possible. Btw, is the nuclear disaster in Japan has already been overcome?
Post Reply