An extensive list of Buddhist lay devotees offering or eating meat

[Dhammanando]

@Senryu

So by the definitions you gave, there is no indication that that was not vegetarian food.

I wouldn’t say that.

If the Brahmāyusutta (and others using the same stock description) had merely said khādanīyena bhojanīyena, then this would leave open the possibility that the meals were vegetarian. That is, the bhojanīya that they were offering might have consisted only of “cooked grain, porridge and flour products”, but no meat or fish.

However, the qualifier “fine” (paṇīta) changes everything.

In the Vinaya the edibles classed as paṇīta comprise: (1) ghee, (2) butter, (3) oil, (4) honey, (5) syrup, (6) fish, (7) meat, (8) milk, and (9) curd.

Of these nine, the first five are seven-day tonics (sattāhakālika), while the last two are khādanīya. That would leave meat and fish as the only edibles that are both paṇīta and bhojanīya. And so to me the description implies that the meal offerings referred to were typically non-vegetarian.

[vimalanyani]

Here’s a story from the vinaya about the Buddhist laywoman Suppiyā offering meat: (Kd6)

9. Discussion of the prohibition against human flesh

When the Buddha had stayed at Rājagaha for as long as he liked, he set out wandering toward Benares. When he eventually arrived, he stayed in the deer park at Isipatana.

At that time in Benares there were two lay-followers, Suppiya and Suppiyā, husband and wife, both with confidence in Buddhism. They were donors and benefactors, and they attended on the Sangha.

On one occasion Suppiyā went to the monastery. She walked from dwelling to dwelling, from yard to yard, asking the monks, “Is anyone sick? What may I bring?” Just then a certain monk had drunk a purgative. He told Suppiyā about this, adding, “I need meat broth.” “No problem, I’ll organize it.”

She then returned to her house and told a servant, “Go and get some meat.” Saying, “Yes, madam,” he walked around the whole of Benares, but could not find any.

So he returned to Suppiyā and said, “There’s no meat, madam. There’s no slaughter today.”

Suppiyā thought, “If that monk doesn’t get meat broth, his illness will get worse or he’ll die. Because I’ve already agreed to provide it, it would not be right if I didn’t.” She then took a knife, cut flesh from her own thigh, and gave it to a slave, saying, “Prepare this meat and give it to the sick monk in such-and-such a dwelling. If anyone asks for me, tell them I’m sick.” She then wrapped her thigh in her upper robe, entered her bedroom, and lay down on the bed.

When Suppiya returned home, he asked the slave where his wife was. The slave told him.

He then went to see her, and she told him what had happened. He thought, “It’s astonishing and amazing how much faith and confidence Suppiyā has, in that she gives up even her own flesh. Is there anything she would not give?”

Delighted and joyful he went to the Buddha. He bowed, sat down, and said, “Venerable Sir, please accept tomorrow’s meal from me together with the Sangha of monks.” The Buddha consented by remaining silent. Knowing that the Buddha had consented, Suppiya got up from his seat, bowed down, circumambulated the Buddha with his right side toward him, and left.

The following morning Suppiya had various kinds of fine food prepared. He then had the Buddha informed that the meal was ready.

The Buddha robed up, took his bowl and robe, and went to Suppiya’s house, where he sat down on the prepared seat together with the Sangha of monks. Suppiya approached the Buddha and bowed down to him. When the Buddha asked him where Suppiyā was, he replied that she was sick.

“Well then, please tell her to come.”

“She’s not able, Sir.”

“Well then, carry her in here.” And they did. The moment Suppiyā saw the Buddha that great wound healed and was perfectly covered with skin and hairs. Suppiya and Suppiyā exclaimed, “The great power and might of the Buddha is truly astonishing and amazing!” Delighted and joyful, they personally served various kinds of fine food to the Sangha of monks headed by the Buddha. When the Buddha had finished his meal, they sat down to one side. The Buddha instructed, inspired, and gladdened them with a teaching, after which he got up from his seat and left.

Soon afterwards the Buddha had the Sangha gathered and questioned the monks: “Who asked Suppiyā for meat?” The responsible monk told the Buddha.

“Did you get the meat?”

“I did, Sir.”

“Did you eat it?”

“Yes.”

“Were you circumspect about it?”

“No, Sir.”

The Buddha rebuked him … “Foolish man, how can you eat meat without circumspection? You have eaten human flesh. This will affect people’s confidence …” After rebuking him, he gave a teaching and addressed the monks:

“There are people who have faith and confidence, even to the point of giving up their own flesh. You should not eat human flesh. If you do, you commit a serious offense.

You should not eat flesh without being circumspect. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.”

[Sunyo]

@vimalanyani

Here’s a story from the vinaya about the Buddhist laywoman Suppiyā offering meat:

While this is a bit of an unbelievable story as a whole imo, what stand outs to me as likely authentic is that in the whole of Baranasi there was no meat. That indicates meat was generally less available than now in rich countries. Something which of course makes sense, since they didn’t have the horribly efficient (and horrible in other ways too) animal industry we have now. So not just Buddhists, people in general would have eaten much less meat than we do, which is probably why in the Patimokkha it is called panitabhojana, fine/luxury food.

And if we look at current poor countries and consider how much meat they eat, we see history reflected back at us.

Anyway, that’s not exactly what Senryu was after, but still loosely connected.

But to go a bit more off-topic:

@faujidoc1

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

Correction: The rejection of meat occurs in an extensive list of ascetic practices summed up as: “And so they live pursuing these various ways of mortifying and tormenting the body. This is called the scorching practice.” Eating meat does not occur in isolation. It is connected to starvation here, basically. By itself it is not a way of mortifying the body. And it occurs in the line “They accept no fish or meat or liquor or wine, and drink no beer,” where the latter of course are also rejected by the Buddha. So there is nothing “scorcing” about just denying meat.

@faujidoc1

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

Right. His intention was to break the sangha. And all other demands he gave were actually encouraged and said to be wholesome by the Buddha, for those who wanted to follow them, so there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them in isolation.

Sure, the Buddha allowed meat in specific cases, that is clear. But we shouldn’t overshoot and insinuate that not eating meat is a bad practice, because that the suttas don’t support.

[Dhammanando]

@Sunyo

what stand outs to me as likely authentic is that in the whole of Baranasi there was no meat. That indicates meat was generally less available than now in rich countries.

The stated reason for there being no meat is that it was a day when slaughtering was prohibited (natthayye pavattamaṁsaṁ, māghāto ajjā ti). But we are not told how frequent such days were, nor what quantity of meat would have been available on days when slaughtering was permitted.

@Sunyo

Something which of course makes sense, since they didn’t have the horribly efficient (and horrible in other ways too) animal industry we have now.

You can have an awful lot of butchery going on even in the absence of modern abattoirs. I remember when I was in Varanasi and Gaya, both cities had row after row of backstreets comprising retail premises all occupied by goat butchers (hundreds of them!), but none seemed to be selling meat purchased from warehouses. Rather, each butcher was doing his own slaughtering on the spot.

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Dhammanando

You can have an awful lot of butchery going on even in the absence of modern abattoirs. I remember when I was in Varanasi and Gaya, both cities had row after row of backstreets comprising retail premises all occupied by goat butchers (hundreds of them!), but none seemed to be selling meat purchased from warehouses. Rather, each butcher was doing his own slaughtering on the spot.

Bhante,

According to google around 70 billion (B-illion) land animals are killed each year. The amount of sea animals that die each year is likely much greater. There are 4.6 million fishing boats out there.

It is simply physically impossible to kill in these numbers without fossil fueled industrialism.

[DhammaWiki]

@Senryu

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!

I’ve had a list for several years now. See:
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha

I don’t have it broken down by if the donors were Buddhists or not, sometimes, you can’t tell by the Sutta, but as others have noted, most were new converts.

A vegetarian might like my list, as it shows that most of the food the Buddha ate was vegetarian and even vegan. However, an omnivore could make the argument that just the fact that the Buddha did accept and eat some meat, even if it was only a small amount, still shows that meat was allowable.

[anon52578963]

Dont know why the Buddha didnt allow monks to adopt vegetarian diet and reject meat eating ? Isnt Buddha was omniscient that he could see and would foresee mass killing of animals in the future ?

[Dhammanando]

@Erika_ODonnell

It is simply physically impossible to kill in these numbers without fossil fueled industrialism.

Sure, I don’t dispute this. However, I don’t see how it would support the claim that “…meat [in ancient India] was generally less available than now in rich countries.”

This claim may (for all I know) be correct, but the fact that animal slaughter was less efficient in those days doesn’t amount to an argument in the claim’s favour, for it doesn’t reckon with the vast difference in population size between then and now.

Tim Dyson’s fascinating book, A Population History of India from the first modern people to the present day, (OUP 2018) gives the following population estimates for a selection of North Indian settlements in the 1st century CE:

Vaisali 55,000
Kausambi 52,000
Ujjain 44,000
Ahicchatra 41,000
Sisupalgarh 33,000
Taxila—Sirsukh 32,000
Balirajgarh 16,000
Srinagar 9,000
Jhusi 7,000
Tilaura-kot 5,000
Bhita 4,000

Now suppose that the butchers of 1st century Vaisali were to slaughter, say, 40 pigs, 90 goats and 14 head of cattle, the yield would be about 13,760 pounds of meat (i.e., 4,000 lb from the pigs, 3,600 lb from the goats and 6,160 lb from the cattle). That would amount to quarter of a pound of meat for everyone in Vesali. Killing on this scale certainly wouldn’t have necessitated anything like the technology of the slaughter industry today, yet meat would nevertheless have been plentiful.

[cdpatton]

@Senryu

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

This shouldn’t be the first conclusion when a parallel is lacking for two reasons. First, we haven’t documented all the parallels that still exist somewhere in various sources. Second, not all the EBTs that existed still exist, so a lack of parallel can just be an accident of history that the parallel was lost.

@Senryu

The other parallels seem to be limited to 2 Vinaya texts in Chinese

The two Chinese Vinayas that are parallels to this story are in the Dharmaguptaka and Mahisasaka Vinayas in a section the deals specifically with eating meat that’s been killed for the sangha.

In the Dharmaguptaka version of the story, Jain disciples accuse Siha of personally slaughtering a cow to make his meal for the Buddha and disciples, which he flatly denies doing, saying he’s never killed any being in his life. This seems to take place after the meal. After Siha is gone, the Buddha tells the monks not to accept meat as alms if they know or suspect that it was killed for that purpose. [The relevant part of the story begins at T1428.22.872a18]

In the Mahisasaka version of the story, Siha goes to a shopkeeper and asks to buy some already-butchered meat after the Buddha accepts his invitation. Again, Jains show up to accuse him of butchering an animal himself to make the meal. The monks who hear this refuse to eat the food, so Siha goes to the Buddha to beg his innocence in the matter, and the Buddha tells the monks they can eat the food if they want. After Siha is gone, the Buddha tells the monks not to eat alms if they know or suspect that someone killed an animal for that purpose. [The relevant passage begins at T1421.22.149c5]

In both of these stories, the issue is whether or not meat has been killed for the purpose of feeding the monks. I would guess that the added detail of buying butchered meat was to make it clear Siha was innocent in the Mahisasaka story. In the Dharmaguptaka version, it’s not entirely clear. Siha is held innocent in both cases because the Jains were known to try to scandalize the Buddha and Sangha, so they weren’t considered reliable accusers.

[Sunyo]

@Dhammanando

The stated reason for there being no meat is that it was a day when slaughtering was prohibited (natthayye pavattamaṁsaṁ, māghāto ajjā ti). But we are not told how frequent such days were, nor what quantity of meat would have been available on days when slaughtering was permitted.

Hi Venerable,

But doesn’t the sutta just says there was no slaughtering? I don’t see it giving a reason for it, don’t see the word “prohibited”. For those who can’t read Pali, Ajahn brahmali’s translation is: “There’s no meat, madam. There’s no slaughter today." Perhaps it was prohibited. It could be interpreted that way (perhaps that’s what the commentary says, which I don’t have atm). But at first glance I’d say it also could just mean there was no slaughter because there were no animals. (Also, I do recall there was also a text that talked about there being no meat in the whole of Savatthi, but that may be bad memory.) Regardless, I think my general point still stands, that meat consumption would have been much rarer. Whether it was because of prohibition or other reasons.

@Dhammanando

You can have an awful lot of butchery going on even in the absence of modern abattoirs.

It is a bit of a different discussion, and you brought up some good points in your later post, but compare pre-industrialized number of meat consumption to what rich countries consume nowadays per capita and the difference is quite big. Unless I’m ill informed. Of course I’m no expert on this.

@Dhammanando

This claim may (for all I know) be correct, but the fact that animal slaughter was less efficient in those days doesn’t amount to an argument in the claim’s favour

But I didn’t say the slaughter is more efficient, though of course it is. I said the animal industry is more efficient, which includes the growth of animals. They’re specifically bred to grow as fast as possible, are given super dense foods, antibiotics, et cetera, all of which didn’t exist even a century or two ago, let alone in ancient india.

@Dhammanando

Rather, each butcher was doing his own slaughtering on the spot.

Right, but then meat butchered on the spot would often not have been allowed to be eaten by monastics. Because it would then often have been killed specifically for them. There being no fridges in ancient India, people would more often have killed their animals themselves or would often have gone to a kind of wet market to get them killed. As the meatless situation in Benares shows, animals would have to be killed on the day they were eaten.

So to bring it back to the topic, which is the lay devotees: The Buddha’s prohibition on meat when it was specifically killed for the monastics would have had a much bigger impact on the choices the laity made back then than it does now. Now, in many countries almost everybody buys meat from a fridge, far removed from the killing. (In a sense far removed, in another sense not, but that’s a discussion I won’t go into unless somebody really wants me to.) It the Buddha’s days it was more, as you say “on the spot”, so would more often have been avoided.

[Sunyo]

@anon52578963

Dont know why the Buddha didnt allow monks to adopt vegetarian diet and reject meat eating ? Isnt Buddha was omniscient that he could see and would foresee mass killing of animals in the future ?

He didn’t disallowed it. Many monks and nuns are vegetarian or vegan.

One rather famous example, because many suspect he’s an arahant, is Ajahn Gunhah. (I’ve never met him yet.)

Since it was still before noon they ordered the Karen to boil the innards of the barking deer (a delicacy) and offered it with some plain rice to the monk. Ajahn Gunhah responded that it was his personal practice to eat only vegetarian food and that plain rice would be enough. Surprised and impressed, they gathered some forest vegetables to offer him. (A simple forest monk)

Amazingly, this is how it always goes. If you let people know you don’t eat meat or dairy and will just eat the rest, they are happy to offer alternatives. More than happy, actually. One time a very devoted lady apologized to me, saying she searched all over town but couldn’t find any vegan bread, haha! I didn’t ask for it, to be clear. She just knew I avoid meat and dairy and apparently thought I therefore never ate bread.

There’s also vegetarian and even vegan monasteries, including in the Theravada tradition.

So no, there’s definitely no prohibition on this.

[Snowbird]

@Sunyo

It the Buddha’s days it was more, as you say “on the spot”, so would more often have been avoided.

This is all feeling like a lot of conjecture based on very few readings. There is, of course, the famous simile of the butcher laying out his cuts of meat at a cross roads. To think that meat happened in only one way is quite silly. A whole cow would not likely be slaughtered “to order” like a chicken.

And the whole premise of this thread looks to me like the warning in the simile of the snake. Studying the Dhamma to win arguments instead of studying the Dhamma to purify the mind. The suttas were not recorded with the intention of providing an accurate record of meat consumption.

[Sunyo]

@Snowbird

To think that meat happened in only one way is quite silly.

I didn’t say it was one way only. I literally said “more often” than now. I even specifically made sure to include “often” and “more” in every sentence about that.

@Snowbird

And the whole premise of this thread looks to me like the warning in the simile of the snake. Studying the Dhamma to win arguments instead of studying the Dhamma to purify the mind. The suttas were not recorded with the intention of providing an accurate record of meat consumption.

Well, you don’t need to participate if you don’t want to. I for one am quite interested in what the suttas may indicate about these things, even though that is obviously not their intention. Though I can understand if you’re not interested in that.

[Snowbird]

@Sunyo

I didn’t say it was one way only.

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to target you specifically. But rather the tone of the whole thread.

[Dhammanando]

@Sunyo

But doesn’t the sutta just says there was no slaughtering? I don’t see it giving a reason for it, don’t see the word “prohibited”.

It’s shown by the prohibitive particle mā in māghāto. I think the sense is better conveyed in the Vietnamese translation and best of all in the German:

“Hôm nay là ngày kiêng sát sanh.”

“Today is the day to abstain from killing.”

„heute ist das Töten verboten.“

“today killing is forbidden.”

[josephzizys]

I really think that many of the people who responded to the original post would be very much opposed to industrial butchery and some are probably even vegetarians.

I, and I believe many others on the thread, simply thought that the implied position of the OP (that lay followers in the Buddhas time where most likely vegetarians) was probably untrue, and that the “evidence” presented was very weak.

That those of us who sought to make reasonable arguments to this effect are now being labeled as “hostile” and “sad” and implied to be ignoring complex ethical issues is completely unfair and uncharitable and misrepresents many of the well meaning people here.

@Deleted

If you don’t think there’s anything here to discuss just because the vinaya rules allow monastics to accept meat as almsfood you probably need to think a bit more about this complex topic.

The OP did not start a thread about the ethics of industrial agriculture. They started a thread about meat eating in the EBT’s. No one at any point suggested that the ethical issue was resolved.

[Suvira]

@Sunyo

But doesn’t the sutta just says there was no slaughtering? I don’t see it giving a reason for it, don’t see the word “prohibited”. For those who can’t read Pali, Ajahn brahmali’s translation is: “There’s no meat, madam. There’s no slaughter today." Perhaps it was prohibited. It could be interpreted that way (perhaps that’s what the commentary says, which I don’t have atm).

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/4-day-meat-ban-in-mumbai-during-jain-festival/

I would have thought it was something like this.

The Vietnamese translator likely picked up on it, as I had heard that the uposatha is observed as a “vegetarian day” in some parts of Vietnam.

[stu]

@Sunyo

And if we look at current poor countries and consider how much meat they eat , we see history reflected back at us.

@Sunyo

to what rich countries consume nowadays per capita

India stands out, because I believe that it is (currently) considered a rich country with low meat consumption.

@Sunyo

They’re specifically bred to grow as fast as possible, are given super dense foods, antibiotics, et cetera, all of which didn’t exist even a century or two ago, let alone in ancient india.

Comparisons with ancient India for consumption is probably quite difficult. For example, as a counter, livestock are also bred to maximise meat yield per animal in modern times, and the variety of ‘meat’ on offer is probably less in modern production - my local supermarket doesn’t sell snake or bat Having said that, there is new industrial scale processes for no kill, cultured meat and insect based protein sources now. I’m not sure how they are going to be counted for comparison (with ancient India) purposes.

[Snowbird]

@Deleted

Unfortunately we don’t have a vinaya for lay people, so we’re left trying to figure out on our own how to implement the precepts into our daily lives.

Or… the Buddha quite intentionally did not create a Vinaya for lay people and over hundreds of suttas he made clear what the five precepts are. The first precept is against killing or instructing others to kill.

The fact that I believe this based on my reading of the suttas in no way implies that I have not considered this deeply or that I support modern meat production or consumption.

I do respect people who try to lead ethical lives in a complicated world. But I am uncomfortable with people making up things that the Buddha clearly dealt with or chose not to make guidelines about.

[anon52578963]

@Sunyo

He didn’t disallowed it. Many monks and nuns are vegetarian or vegan.

I remember Buddha rejected Devadatta suggestion to follow vegetarian diet . If Buddha thought of future mass killings He would have allowed it starting from beginning .