An extensive list of Buddhist lay devotees offering or eating meat

I have kept my eyes and ears open for years for any evidence in the EBTs of Buddhist lay people eating meat or offering it to the Sangha. Today I came across another sutta. If anyone knows of any others, please give details! Here’s all that I have found so far:

1) AN 8.12 shows General Sīha buying meat to prepare and offer to the Buddha and the Sangha.

The parallel to this sutta is MA 18, but it seems to completely exclude the episode of Siha offering meat. The other parallels seem to be limited to 2 Vinaya texts in Chinese, and one in Pāli, none of which I have translations for. Can anyone confirm their contents and whether they confirm this episode?
Question: If this episode is also absent from those Chinese Vinaya parallels, does this exclude this as qualifying as an EBT?

Siha had only become a Buddhist the day before, and him offering meat caused a big controversy. To me this implies that offering meat to the Sangha was abnormal, possibly even shocking. Since he had only just encountered Buddhism the day before, the simplest explanation seems to perhaps be that Buddhist lay people did not offer meat to the Sangha, but he didn’t know that yet.

2) Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta
This is the famous case of the Buddha’s last meal. Most people think this was not in fact meat, though it seems uncertain. Anyway we cannot give this as an unambiguous case so cannot include it with any certainty.

3) AN 5.44 - Ugga of Vesālī offers the Buddha pork

My pork with jujube is agreeable:
Manāpaṁ me, bhante, sampannakolakaṁ sūkaramaṁsaṁ; Variant: sampannakolakaṁ sūkaramaṁsaṁ → sampannasūkaramaṁsaṁ (bj); sampannavarasūkaramaṁsaṁ (sya-all)
may the Buddha please accept it from me out of compassion.”
taṁ me bhagavā paṭiggaṇhātu anukampaṁ upādāyā”ti.
So the Buddha accepted it out of compassion.
Paṭiggahesi bhagavā anukampaṁ upādāya.

There are no parallels listed for this text. So can we therefore discount this as an EBT?

This text also states:

However, this plank of sandalwood is worth over a thousand dollars.
Idaṁ me, bhante, candanaphalakaṁ agghati adhikasatasahassaṁ;
May the Buddha please accept it from me out of compassion.”
taṁ me bhagavā paṭiggaṇhātu anukampaṁ upādāyā”ti.
So the Buddha accepted it out of compassion.
Paṭiggahesi bhagavā anukampaṁ upādāya.

Are there any confirmed EBTs where the Buddha or any other monk accepts something such as sandalwood? Would it not be against the vinaya to receive such a gift?

Also I see no indication in this text that Ugga is a Buddhist. Although if we believe the ‘Ugga of Vesālī’ of AN 8.21 is the same person, then it would seem he was indeed a lay devotee since soon after meeting the Buddha, and that this meat episode was near the end of his life, so it would seem he was already familiar with the dhamma when he purportedly offered meat. Nevertheless, due to the lack of parallels for the meat story (and the sandalwood issue?), it seems we cannot accept this story as necessarily being authentic/early.

These are the only instances I have ever come across. And since the only one confirmed by parallels (if it is confirmed by the Chinese vinayas?), is Sīha, who had encountered Buddhism only the day before and caused a huge controversy; combined with the ban on trading in meat; and the ban on killing; and the only explicit allowance for eating meat being the ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ which seems to have been a standard Sramana rule, leading even Mahavira to accept meat despite Jain lay people being vegetarian, the evidence so far seems to suggest that Buddhist lay followers may even have been vegetarian themselves, and may have had a clear policy to not offer the Sangha meat.

If anyone has any other EBT evidence to share, then please do.


Jīvaka, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.

In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten.

In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.

Meat is allowable according to the Vinaya too…

Bu Pc 39
‘If a monk asks for any of these kinds of fine foods for himself—that is, ghee, butter, oil, honey, syrup, fish, meat, milk, and curd—and then eats it, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
“Monks, I allow a sick monk to eat fine foods that he has requested for himself."
Meat: the meat of those animals whose meat is allowable.

There was need of meat-broth. “I allow, monks, meat-broth.”

But not all kinds of Meat!

Monks, you should not make use of human flesh. Whoever should make use of it, there is a grave offence. Nor, monks, should you make use of flesh without inquiring about it.
Monks, you should not make use of elephant-flesh… dog-flesh…snake-flesh… lion- flesh…

Lay Buddhists often offered meat…

Bu Np 18
At one time the Buddha was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrel sanctuary. At that time Venerable Upananda was associating with a family from which he received a regular meal. Whenever that family obtained food, they put aside a portion for Upananda. And that’s what they did when one evening they obtained some meat.

Even Noble disciples offered meat to the Buddha :joy:

Bu Np 5
Uppalavaṇṇā had just emerged from stillness when she heard the head bandit making that statement. She took the meat and returned to her dwelling place. The following morning she prepared the meat and made it into a bundle with her upper robe. She then rose into the air and landed in the Bamboo Grove.

When she arrived the Buddha had already entered a village to collect almsfood, but Venerable Udāyī had been left behind to look after the dwellings. Uppalavaṇṇā approached Udāyī and said, “Venerable, where’s the Buddha?”

“He’s entered the village to collect almsfood.”

“Please give this meat to the Buddha.”

and monks even got meat stuck in their throats…

Bu Pj Vb 3
On one occasion a monk got meat stuck in his throat while eating. A second monk hit him on the neck. The meat was expelled together with blood, and the monk died. The second monk became anxious … “There’s no offense for one who isn’t aiming at death.”

Not accepting meat is an ascetic practice … it doesn’t lead to enlightenment.

And what’s the scorching practice?..They accept no fish or meat …

Being strictly vegetarian was one of Devadutta’s demands when he plotted to cause a schism…

Kd 17
How can we make a schism in the recluse Gotama’s Order, a breaking of the concord?”

“Come, we, your reverence, having approached the recluse Gotama, will ask for five items…
For as long as life lasts, let them not eat fish and flesh; whoever should eat fish and flesh, sin would besmirch him.

and the Buddha has pretty much settled the matter!

Enough, Devadatta,” he said. “Whoever wishes, let him be a forest-dweller; whoever wishes, let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village; whoever wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him accept an invitation; whoever wishes, let him be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes, let him accept a householder’s robes. For eight months, Devadatta, lodging at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish and flesh are pure in respect of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed on purpose for him).”


Yes and also Siha was a Jain before he converted. And there was nothing in the sermon of the Buddha about diet or meat, so how would Siha, a Jain and therefore, probably a vegetarian, all of a sudden have a desire to go out and purchase meat? It could be anti-Jain propaganda slipped into that Sutta.

1 Like

Yes, but the OP is referring to lay people and what they eat and what they offer. Monastics don’t have a choice, as long as it’s allowable food. Lay people do have a choice.


What stands out from the Vinaya accounts IMO, especially the account of Ven Upananda’s lay supporter family keeping aside meat for him and Ven Uppalavanna’s reserving the meat she received for the Buddha is that meat was a delicacy, a luxury to be considered on the same level as medicine. Hence, I disagree with the OP’s conclusion that Buddhist lay followers had a policy of not offering the Sangha meat.


How does this help people?



Thanks for your reply. This however seem to not speak to the topic.

This is also not an example of any Buddhist giving meat to any Sangha member, but it is nevertheless interesting, and something I had never heard about. Now that the Vinaya has finally been translated, I really should read it!
Question: Do we know how far back we can date this?

Thanks. Let’s check…

Well, let’s see what else this source says:

“Are you giving up a kahāpaṇa coin for me?”


“Then just give me that kahāpaṇa.”

After giving a kahāpaṇa to Upananda, that man complained and criticized him, “The Sakyan monastics accept money just as we do.”

[Edited after I realised I mis-read this text]
So, this is interesting. It does have ‘a family’ who nearly offered meat. It does not seem to specify whether or not that family was Buddhist, however. So we don’t seem to be able to add this to the list. Furthermore, this is quite specifically a monk who is receiving money! Now we might argue that that rule did not exist until this happened. However, I would expect it was implicitly understood already, and I say this partly because of it being banned due to this even though there is no indication that anything bad came of it, and secondly because the community was based on pre-existing Sramana culture, which was based especially on ‘poverty’.

In summary, the monk’s behaviour is seen as wrong, the lay people do not offer meat, and they are not even confirmed to be Buddhists.


Ok so we have Uppalavaṇṇā offering meat to the Buddha. So, who was she? Was she a lay Buddhist? No. She was in fact a nun. The meat was in fact prepared by bandits! And not even offered specifically to any Buddhist! Here is the quote from that source showing that:

Just then some bandits who had stolen and slaughtered a cow were taking the meat to the Blind Men’s Grove. The head bandit saw Uppalavaṇṇā sitting at the foot of that tree. He thought, “If my sons and brothers see this nun, they’ll harass her,” and he took a different path. Soon afterwards when the meat was cooked, he took the best part, tied it up with a palm-leaf wrap, hung it from a tree not far from Uppalavaṇṇā, and said, “Whatever ascetic or brahmin sees this gift, please take it.” And he left.




Again none of that is not related to the topic.

I am grateful for the Vinaya references, but sorry to say that there is not a single example of any lay Buddhist offering and Sangha member meat here. If you had other examples in mind when saying “Lay Buddhists often offered meat…”, please offer them.

1 Like

I actually wondered if the rumour spread in the sutta was wider than interpreted. The earlier part of the sutta does say:

Then Sīha addressed a certain man, “Mister, please find out if there is any meat ready for sale.” And when the night had passed General Sīha had a variety of delicious foods prepared in his own home. Then he had the Buddha informed of the time, saying, “Sir, it’s time. The meal is ready.”

That makes it clear he did offer meat. But I’d really like to know if this, and/or the accusation later in the sutta, are in the parallels from the other schools. I had wondered, supposing that part were a later addition (an expansion of the story made later and potentially based on misinterpretation), whether he might not have offered meat at all and whether the rumour was not simply that the Buddha accepted meat he knew was killed for him, but rather that actual offering itself was just a part of the rumour, rather than being true. The rest would make total sense if that were so:

Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, went to Sīha’s home, where he sat on the seat spread out, together with the Saṅgha of mendicants. Now at that time many Jain ascetics in Vesālī went from street to street and from square to square, calling out with raised arms: “Today General Sīha has slaughtered a fat calf for the ascetic Gotama’s meal. The ascetic Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared specially for him: this is a deed he caused.”

Then a certain person went up to Sīha and whispered in his ear, “Please sir, you should know this. Many Jain ascetics in Vesālī are going from street to street and square to square, calling out with raised arms: ‘Today General Sīha has slaughtered a fat calf for the ascetic Gotama’s meal. The ascetic Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared specially for him: this is a deed he caused.’”

“Enough, sir. For a long time those venerables have wanted to discredit the Buddha, his teaching, and his Saṅgha. They’ll never stop misrepresenting the Buddha with their false, hollow, lying, untruthful claims. We would never deliberately take the life of a living creature, not even for life’s sake.”

Then Sīha served and satisfied the mendicant Saṅgha headed by the Buddha with his own hands with a variety of delicious foods. When the Buddha had eaten and washed his hand and bowl, Sīha sat down to one side. Then the Buddha educated, encouraged, fired up, and inspired him with a Dhamma talk, after which he got up from his seat and left.

You see, it is stating that the rumour is false, but not affirming that there was any meat offered or consumed.

And that fits with your idea about “how would Siha, a Jain and therefore, probably a vegetarian, all of a sudden have a desire to go out and purchase meat?” In that case it could have been Jain propaganda against Buddhism - ah, he is offering meat!

Also as the only example we have so far of any lay Buddhist offering meat, it is indeed very strange that it’s a former Jain, isn’t it! It makes this story seem a little fishy.


[quote=“faujidoc1, post:5, topic:26287”]
Ven Uppalavanna’s reserving the meat she received for the Buddha is that meat was a delicacy, a luxury [/quote]

Whether it is a luxury or not is beside the point. She acquired it with zero contribution to harming any living being. Buddhist ethics are based on not harming. The meat can still be valued, but refused if it ever leads to harm. And encouraging lay people to offer meat, causes murder on a grand scale.

to be considered on the same level as medicine.

Also beside the point. Mahavira ate meat as medicine. But Jain lay people were vegetarian. (The chicken he ate died of natural causes).

Hence, I disagree with the OP’s conclusion that Buddhist lay followers had a policy of not offering the Sangha meat.

So far there is no evidence to show they did offer meat, aside from the problematic example of Sīha. And that is why I made this post, to explore this issue using an evidence-based method.

There are a lot of people here interested in the study of the Early Buddhist Texts. This is an exploration of a specific topic in the EBTs. If you do not find it helpful, no worries, it might not be for you.

1 Like

I’m sorry @Senryu but your bias is showing quite palpably here, we all agree that monks are by definition those who rely on the laity for thier food, and the laity are also, almost by definition Buddhist if they are people who give food to the sangha.

All these examples show that monks ate meat and by inference that meat must have been given to them by Buddhist lay followers.

It is quite clear from your initial post that you hoped to give evidence for the suggestion that perhaps lay buddhists where vegetarians even in the buddhas time, and it is very clear from the evidence @faujidoc1 gives that they did in fact give meat to monastics.

Again, @faujidoc1 has provided a really helpful, evidence based reply here, with multiple examples of monks eating meat and multiple examples of discussion of the ethics of meat eating.

Unless you have a plausible alternate explanation of where the monks where getting all this meat from then one must infer that the Buddhist laity did in fact at times eat meat and that it was the surplus meat from them that was donated to the sangha.


Oh really? Please note the title of this post:
​**‘An extensive list of Buddhist lay devotees offering or eating meat’**

I rejected @faujidoc1’s examples not out of bias, but for the simple fact they they were not examples of Buddhist lay devotees offering or eating meat, with the single exception of one family whose religious affiliation was not given but might have been Buddhist.


No, we do not ‘all agree’ on that. I already gave the explanation of one of @faujidoc1’s claims where the meat in fact came from a ‘bandit’ and was offered to “Whatever ascetic or brahmin”. Since lay devotees took the 5 precepts, I think we can actually be quite sure that that bandit was not a Buddhist lay devotee!

Our approach is clearly different. I am going by the evidence-based method, searching for actual examples of Buddhist lay people giving the Buddha or Sangha members meat. If you want to believe without evidence that that was commonplace, you are welcome to. But personally, I am interested in evidence, and find it significant that the only example we have so far is Sīha, who was only Buddhist for a day, and the story itself is highly suspect, as we have discussed above.

  1. You forget that @faujidoc1 provided no examples at all.
  2. You assume my motivations, but I am interactive, so I can just tell you directly. That is more efficient! What I in fact hoped for, was the truth. And I hoped to attain it via evidence, hence sharing the evidence I have, and asking for anyone who has more, to contribute. This I think is a good way to engage in dhamma study. Don’t you think so?

You start with “all this meat”, perhaps implying a lot of meat, a high frequency. I do not see evidence of that though. We could imagine it was a lot, but that is why I have been searching for all actual examples of this. So I would just say ‘meat’, rather than ‘all this meat’.

Regarding “one must infer that the Buddhist laity did in fact at times eat meat” - I would rather infer on the basis of evidence, and we don’t have any so far, so I will not do so.

Regarding another plausible explanation of where the Sangha were getting meat, well isn’t the answer to that obvious? Non-Buddhist lay people. And we have already been given an example of that - the bandit. So far as I remember we even have examples of lay people in later centuries making offerings to Sramanas of religions to which they did not belong, and I think Asoka is one such example, who made offerings to non-Buddhist sramanas as well as Buddhist sramanas. And even in modern times I myself as a Buddhist beggar have received from Hindus and Sikhs and been travelling with a Hindu sadhu receiving from Sikhs together. I’ve also given offerings to Hindu sadhus myself. So this is not even unusual today in India. And besides, we know the monks had to beg indiscriminately at houses, and especially in the early days, and while travelling or residing in a new place, they were bound to be begging from non-Buddhists likely most or all of the time, and there is no reason to think that even when they were staying in well established settlements with many local devotees, that they would even then never be begging from the local and likely diverse community. So in my opinion there is absolutely no issue with explaining a non-Buddhist source of meat received.

If you have actual evidence of Buddhist lay people offering meat, then please do provide it. But let’s not make fixed views based only on assumption.


thank you for your thoughtful reply @Senryu but I think we will have to agree to disagree. It seems like the only evidence you are willing to accept is 1. examples in the suttas of 2. lay followers who are 3. said to be Buddhist and 4. have been Buddhists for longer than a minimum period and 5. appear in suttas that are unquestionably authentic and not suspect. It seems to me that this definition of what constitutes “evidence” is … strange?

and the problem with asking people if they are biased is that they invariably answer that they are not, it remains very clear to me that you are hoping that the argument is decided in favor of lay followers in the Buddhas time being vegetarian, and equally clear to me that they where probably not.

(I do think your argument that many non-Buddhists would have given to wandering beggars of any and all sects is a good one though.)

No. Vinaya is also fine.

This should not surprise you when the title is ‘An extensive list of Buddhist lay devotees offering or eating meat’. Obviously if the evidence is not of lay people, it is irrelevant to this list. This should therefore not be “strange” to you.

Neither should this, for exactly the same reason. If I was making a list of blue flowers, it would similarly not be strange to only include flowers that are blue, and people should not be upset if I reject offers of adding examples of red tables to a list of blue flowers!

I have to admit this is getting a little frustrating now. You can clearly see Sīha is on the list and he was only Buddhist for a day. That did not exclude him from the list. But that fact is certainly relevant and interesting, hence it has been noted.

Again false, for the same reason - the Sīha example is suspect and yet still on the list. And I am actually quite baffled why you would be on this forum that has an extreme EBT focus and yet think it “strange” that I have been discussing authenticity and whether a text is early or not. This is quite standard in the field of Early Buddhism. We rely much more on texts that are provably early, and we try not to base our understanding of what the Buddha taught or what happened back then, from stories that are absent in the early texts and show clear signs of late composition. This is just normal evidence-based methodology.

Your discussion is not entirely uninteresting, but is completely devoid of evidence, so I think I will have to disengage with it as it is taking up rather a lot of my time. I do welcome any and all to contribute to the discussion with evidence, however, and I will add any evidence to the list in the OP if provided, so others may access the list with ease.

1 Like

Do you have a list of Buddhist lay followers offering other kinds of food?

It would be useful in evaluating what your list amounts to if one where able to compare it to the list of all occurrences of lay followers specifically mentioned to be Buddhist, being described as donating named foodstuffs, (apart form meat) and being from Suttas that “qualify” as EBT’s so we can compare the relative quantities of “evidence”.

also when I said “strange” I was being kind, your definition of evidence is clearly designed to reject many reasonable facts from the EBT’s that would favor the position that lay followers of the time where unlikely to be vegetarian, re-defining “evidence” to be only what you want to hear (or not hear) does not make you appear “evidence based” it just makes you appear biased in favor of one outcome, that is that for some reason, despite monastic Buddhists definitly NOT being vegetarian, lay Buddhists where, and you don’t even present ANY evidence for this position, you just make a (weak) case for the LACK of evidence on the other side.

Why would lay Buddhists be vegetarian when their monastic counterparts where not? what actual positive evidence is there in the EBT’s that this was the case?

By your standards I should demand that you produce suttas where the lay person eating or donating food is explicitly identified as Buddhist, and explicitly identified as being a vegetarian. And in fact by your standards even if their was loads of Vinaya texts stating that the monastics WHERE vegetarians and DID proclaim that eating meat was totally unethical this would not constitute evidence because the examples where not of lay followers so maybe they had a completely different, meat based diet that bore no relation to the diet of the monks of the same religious community.

anyway, I am done here too I suppose, good luck with your list.


1 Like

Has anyone mentioned AN 5.44: Manāpadāyīsutta?

“Bhante, in the presence of the Blessed One I heard and learned this: ‘The giver of what is agreeable gains what is agreeable.’ Bhante, my pork embellished with jujubes is agreeable. Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed One accepted, out of compassion.

This particular disciple, Ugga of Vesali, was declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of givers who donate nice things/the agreeable.

As far as this thread, while I might disagree with the implication I assume the OP is trying to make, I do think it’s good to keep to their request. The diet of lay disciples of the Buddha is clearly not the focus of the suttas and the suttas may not be the best source of information to answer that question. None the less, the OP’s request for information is reasonable.

OP, you might want to, at least temporarily, change the OP to a wiki post so you can update it with things that folks find that are relevant to your question.


There are many sutta passages where some faithful householder (most often someone newly converted) invites the Buddha and bhikkhusangha for a meal, whereat he or she serves them with “fine khādanīya and bhojanīya.”

Atha kho brahmāyu brāhmaṇo sattāhaṃ buddhap­pamu­khaṃ bhikkhusaṅghaṃ paṇītena khādanīyena bhojanīyena sahatthā santappesi sampavāresi.

Then, for a week, with his own hands, the brahmin Brahmāyu served and satisfied the Sangha of bhikkhus headed by the Buddha with fine khādanīya and bhojanīya.

Translators vary greatly in their renderings of these two classes of food: “hard and soft”, “staple and non-staple”, “eatable and consumable”, “fresh and cooked”, etc. But what the two classes comprise is defined many times in the Vinaya Pitaka:

Khādanīyaṃ nāma pañca bhojanāni—yāmakālikaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ khādanīyaṃ nāma.

Bhojanīyaṃ nāma pañca bhojanāni—odano, kummāso, sattu, maccho, maṃsaṃ.

Fresh food: apart from the five cooked foods, the post-midday tonics, the seven-day tonics, and the lifetime tonics—the rest is called “fresh food”.

Cooked food: there are five kinds of cooked food: cooked grain, porridge, flour products, fish, and meat.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You may never find proof that lay Buddhists were largely omnivores, but that doesn’t mean they were vegetarian. This is not a criticism of you or your intentions, it’s just not how logic, as a tool, works.

Here’s one that probably doesn’t fit the request, but it’s lovely and interesting none the less:
Therāpadāna 266

On Candabhāgā River’s bank
I was an osprey at that time.
I brought a big fish and gave it
to the Buddha named Siddhattha.

In the ninety-four aeons since
I donated that fish back then,
I’ve come to know no bad rebirth:
that’s the fruit of fish donations.

The four analytical modes,
and these eight deliverances,
six special knowledges mastered,
I have done what the Buddha taught!

Thus indeed Venerable Macchadāyaka Thera spoke these verses.


I don’t want to engage with your other remarks since I covered them all extensively already. But this is indeed an excellent suggestion, just one I simply do not have time for. If you or anyone else wants to compile such an extensive list, please do so!

Yes, it is number 3 in the list of 3 in the OP. Though admittedly I forgot to mention it in some of my later comments. I did also mention in the OP:

And also regarding that sutta showing the Buddha also accepting a very expensive block of sandalwood, I wrote:

If anyone has feedback on either of those 2 points, that would be great.

To be honest, I cannot think of a better source - can you? But remember this post has a twofold aim: to gather all available evidence of whether Buddhist lay people commonly ate meat; and to gather all available information on Buddhist lay people offering meat to the Sangha. And all of this with regard to the time frame of when the Buddha was alive, or perhaps also shortly afterwards. And I cannot imagine any better source than the Early Buddhist Texts, which includes of course both sutta and vinaya.

Thanks. How do I do that? My intention was to add new info at the bottom of the post and make it explicit they were additions. I nearly added the single example that was offered here, which was the monk who regularly received meals from that family, even though they are not described as Buddhist… until I realised that they didn’t even offer any meat in that story! So naturally I could not add them as they are of unknown religion and didn’t offer meat.

Cool, thanks. So by the definitions you gave, there is no indication that that was not vegetarian food. For example, rice and vegetables would qualify, as would millet and potatoes, and so on.

Have you come across examples where the food is more specified?

That’s true. We have no evidence that the Buddhist lay people did not worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But we do have no evidence that they did. Different people will make different interpretations based on the evidence or lack of evidence. But in my opinion it is very useful to first know what the evidence is, before jumping to conclusions.

More to the point, if there is an existing assumption that the Buddhist lay community were regularly eating meat and offering meat to the Sangha, but if it turns out that the evidence does not support that assumption, then that assumption is brought into question, and cannot be taken as a known fact.

Yeah, carnivorous birds making offerings billions of years ago is not quite what I was looking for. But thanks for sharing.

Oh, sorry. It was the later comments that threw me off.

Absolutely not! I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion. But that’s probably something for another thread.

I’m not aware of a sandalwood offering other than the bowl gained by a show of psychic powers. But that was a very specific incident. It caused the prohibition of displays of psychic powers to lay people and the prohibition of wooden bowls. But the sandalwood was then given to monks to use as scent in ointment. But Bhante @Brahmali would know better.

No, not that I am aware of. There are very few things that monks cannot accept. Money being the main one. Things of great value are sometimes taken apart to make them proper for monks to use (I’m thinking about the cutting up of cloth and the removing of stuffing from furniture).

In any case, the argument that this gift of sandalwood somehow makes the passage inauthentic is baseless.

I mean, it’s your party, so you can think whatever you want. But it really does seem like you are using very flimsy criterion to eliminate a text that clearly meets your requirements.

At the bottom of your original post there will either be a wrench icon (I believe) or a three dot icon to click to show it. One of the options under the wrench should be to make it a wiki post. If it’s not there it means that too much time is past. But just message @moderators and ask them to convert it to a wiki. Because you are the creator, every time a change is made there will be a notice to you.

I’m not an indologists. But they do exist and I’m sure they would have some theories about it if not some kind of proof.

I’d also caution you against such a narrow definition of who is and isn’t a “Buddhist” in the texts. While there are some cases where people declare there refuge, just because they don’t doesn’t mean they aren’t.