0%

Vegetarianism and Theravada Buddhism

Vegetarianism and Theravāda Buddhism

I have been asked to write a little something on vegetarianism and Theravāda Buddhism. I am qualified to be quite objective, and to see both sides of the issue because I was a vegetarian for a total of ten years as a lay person and I had vegetarian eyes. That meant that when I looked at meat, cooked or not, I saw a dead animal in front of me. Now that I am a monk, I am no longer a vegetarian although I have lived at vegetarian monasteries for many years, so I know both sides of the coin.

The short answer to the issue is “Yes,” it is OK for monks to eat meat, but it is not such a good idea for lay people to eat or buy meat. I know it is a double standard, but I will explain.

The Monk’s Rules

There are some rules for monks regarding meat. For the monks to eat meat, it should not be seen, heard or suspected that the animal, fish or bird has been killed for the purpose of serving the monk. There are also ten types of animals that the Buddhist monks are not allowed to eat. They are:

  1. Human beings
  2. Elephants
  3. Horses
  4. Dogs
  5. Snakes
  6. Lions
  7. Tigers
  8. Leopards
  9. Bears
  10. Hyenas

The first three are considered “Too noble to eat.” While the rest are considered either repulsive or dangerous. It is dangerous because the animal or reptile may smell his kinsfolk on the monk’s body and attack for revenge!1
A better way to think of it is a mutual respect for dangerous animals and serpents. There is also a rule that a monk should not ask for meat unless one is ill (Pac 39). The meat must also be cooked for the monks because a monk should not eat raw meat, nor are monks allowed to cook food themselves, although reheating or “second-cooking” is allowed (Mv.VI.17.6). However, there is one exception that allows serving raw meat to a monk who is possessed (Mv.VI.10.2)!

The background story regarding the allowance of a non-vegetarian lifestyle for monks originates with Venerable Devadatta, the nemesis of the Buddha, wanting to cause a schism in the Saṅgha by publicly declaring that five ascetic practices be made mandatory for all monks. Among those five—and the last of the five—was a prohibition of fish and flesh. The Buddha responded by saying that:

“Fish-and-flesh are pure in respect of three points of purity: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed on purpose for him).”

2
3

The Buddha made the four prior ascetic practices that Venerable Devadatta requested as optional. However, the last practice, vegetarianism, was mentioned as above as “pure” if it met the three points of purity. From this, we can infer that a vegetarian diet is optional too because there is no rule that a monk should eat everything in his bowl.

In order for the monk to request vegetarian food or meat, he must be invited to choose his food or have a health condition to require such a diet. If he is not invited, does not have a health condition, and the food is “pure” according to the three purifications, then he should not request special food. However, there is only a prohibition for asking for certain types of food when the proper conditions to ask are not present. There is no prohibition against refusing certain types of food one will not be eating. If a donor tries to offer meat into a monk’s bowl, he can legally refuse it. While the monk should not say the reason why unless asked, the donor would likely get the hint over time. Should a monk refuse food, for this or that reason? I don’t want to answer that question.

So with all that said, the monks do have a choice and this document will cover the reasons why a monk should be a vegetarian or why he might opt to eat meat.

Although there is a health exemption listed in the texts to allow a monk to eat meat, there is no real viable health reason to justify being a meat eater. Most doctors not only believe that a vegetarian diet is sustainable, but they also believe it is very healthy with statistical data to prove it.

By Reason of Saṁsāra

All Buddhists should have Saṁsāra (the endless rounds of rebirth) in mind with all of their actions. Saṁsāra is very long and dangerous. A human who develops a habit of being a vegetarian can continue that habit from one life to another. If one is unfortunate to be born as an animal, one is best off being a vegetarian animal rather than a meat eater. Why?

If one were born as a wildcat who hunts for food, then this wildcat is killing living beings in order to eat. Let me be clear that although it is his “wildcat nature” to hunt and kill, he is not exempt from the kamma of killing other animals. This is the dangerous part of being born in the animal realm. It is also very likely that this or lower realms will be the result. That is why the Buddha said as part of his daily admonition the following:4

“Bhikkhus, strive with diligence.
Rare is the appearance of a Buddha.
Rare is the human birth.
Rare is it to have the good fortune of time and place.
Rare is the going forth.
Rare is the True Dhamma.”

There can be a long cycle before one can return to the human realm. That is why the Buddha said that getting to the human realm is like a life-ring5 being thrown into the ocean, and every 100 years a tortoise would rise up to the surface of the ocean (randomly). The odds of his head being near the life-ring—let alone going through it—are almost zero. That is the chance beings have to get a human birth.

So once someone is born into the animal realm, it is very difficult for that animal to get back into the human realm. The animal that hunts and kills needs to suffer the results of his kamma just like any other being. He will go to hell realms and ghost realms and back into animal realms.

So when one decides to be a meat eater or a vegetarian, one should think about saṁsāra and the unfortunate event if one were to be born as an animal. If you were born as an animal, would you want to be a vegetarian animal or a meat-hunting animal?

Fresh Kill, Old Kill

Is it bad to eat meat that was already killed for another purpose? Some say yes, some say no. It can be tricky. The rule is that the meat should not be killed for the purpose of feeding a monk. Let’s say you catch some fish and bring it to your family. Then you decide after it was killed to offer some to a monk. This would be allowable. However, it could get tricky because a devoted fisherman might save his best fish and kill it for the monk. If this were so, then this fish would not be allowable.

Pa-Auk Forest Monastery has been primarily a vegetarian monastery for a long time. I asked Pa-Auk Sayadawgyi why the monastery is vegetarian in 2001 when there were only 400 residents. He said that they would need to order meat to feed the residents and that would mean animals being killed for the monks. These days, there are individual donors who offer meat independently to a small number of monks who go through the monastery alms line. This is allowable because they buy in the open market.

Chickens, goats, and pigs are often killed by those who breed and kill them for their meat. So when a lay person buys “already dead” meat, the kamma of killing has already been done. This killing kamma goes on the meat farmers who killed the animals to sell in the market. This is really bad kamma for those workers. It is different from a hunter who kills once or twice a month on hunting trips. Those who do this as a livelihood are killing all day, every day they work. The amount of kamma they accumulate is uncountable because it is habitual. Being in the business of trading flesh is one of the five types of wrong livelihood.

So now you can understand why right livelihood is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Liberation from the rounds of rebirths is not possible without following right livelihood and the other seven factors of the path.

The five types of wrong livelihood are:

  1. Trade in weapons
  2. Trade in humans
  3. Trade in flesh
  4. Trade in intoxicants
  5. Trade in poisons (AN 5.177).

So the question I ask is:

Would a good person have any reason to buy a weapon?
Would a good person have any reason to buy a slave?
Would a good person have any reason to buy intoxicants?
Would a good person have any reason to buy poisons?

The answer is “No” for all forms of wrong livelihood. What about the trade of rearing and selling flesh? It should be noted that this refers to the root level of rearing animals for sale (and then killing them or having them killed). If something is bad once, then doing it many times as a livelihood is wrong livelihood.

The million-dollar question is, “If nobody were to buy meat, then there would not be a livelihood of killing meat and the animals would live free.” In the West, we practice boycotting certain products that do not fit into ethical means. Sometimes it works, but not always.

Monks who follow the rules do not buy food, and therefore, the big super factory farms that kill millions of animals per day do not have monks in mind when they slaughter the animals. Therefore, it is allowable meat because it was not killed for monks. Not only that, but most of the workers in such slaughterhouses are of the lowest forms of human beings. They are usually ex-convicts and/or alcoholics often with psychiatric problems.6

Should You Eat Meat?

If a donor asks me beforehand what kind of food I prefer before buying something for me, I will tell them I would prefer vegetarian food. If I am not asked, I simply eat what is given to me.

For the case of going on alms round, I would eat whatever was put in my bowl by any donor as long as it was not suspected that the meat was killed for me.

Should lay people be vegetarians? Yes. Is there bad kamma for buying meat in the store? That depends on many factors. However, if you boycott products from unethical factories, you might also consider the meat industry and what they do to animals. Not only do they treat animals badly, but they kill them too! There is no such thing as “ethical free-range meat” unless it’s roadkill or a veterinarian’s euthanized pet.

In the end, killing happens in the meat industry, and it is unethical.

Conclusion

So when it comes to monks eating meat, they have a choice if the three purity points are met: it is not seen, heard, or suspected that the meat was killed for the monk. It can be a good idea for a monk to suggest vegetarian food when he is asked and it is proper and allowable. He can also simply eat what is put into his bowl and reflect on the repulsive nature of almsfood, which is a specific food meditation object mentioned in the Path to Purification.

When one considers being a vegetarian, one should reflect on habitual kamma as it relates to saṃsāra because “Rare is the human birth.” Lay people have more of a choice than monks because it is allowable for them to buy their own food. The lay person is encouraged to be a vegetarian consumer and not add to the unethical animal farming industry.

Remember, there is no such thing as ethical meat no matter how free-range or natural the claims are.

May all beings be happy and free from getting killed!

If you liked what you read, you might want to subscribe to get this delivered to your email address. Click here.

  1. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Buddhist Monastic Code Vol. 1, p. 303. ↩︎

  2. The exact Cūḷavagga Pāḷi passage reads: “Alaṁ, Devadatta … ṭikoṭiparisuddhaṁ macchamaṁsaṁ — adiṭṭhaṁ, assutaṁ, aparisaṅkitaṁ.” Verified with Venerable Ānandajoti, a Pāḷi scholar. ↩︎

  3. I. B. Horner, The Book of Discipline Vol. 5 (Culavagga), p. 303, Pali Text Society. ↩︎

  4. DN-a 1, 1. Brahmajālasuttavaṇṇanā, paribbājakakathāvaṇṇanā para. 83. ↩︎

  5. The original simile uses a “yoke” instead of a life-ring, but the meaning is similar. ↩︎

  6. See: https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses. ↩︎

Click below to search subjects

Add Your Comments: