In three cases that meat may 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.

what does it mean while saying “it’s not seen, heard, or suspected.”? How can someone eat meat without seeing it?
Can someone explain for me. Thanks!

I interpret it to mean that meat is allowable if the monk or nun haven’t seen, heard or even suspect that it comes from an animal that was killed specifically for to be cooked into a meal for him or her.

Maybe venerable @dhammanando or @Brahmali could give us some insight into what do the paracanonical commentaries say about this?

And I speculate further that the main reason for this boundary was that without it things could quickly and easily slip into the religious sacrifice spectrum.

For example, in some middle east religions and cultures we have special dates in which lambs are killed for religious reasons and, as a result, people are left with quite a lot of meat to cook. Hence, the sacrifice becomes as well an excuse for a meat feast!



Let me share what I learnt-

From the very beginning, as Buddhist monks live on donated food, they are not meant to be choosy between what they eat and what they don’t eat.

But, when Devadatta proposed to live a vegetarian life for all monks, Buddha turned it down and only made a restriction on eating meat under 3 circumstances.

  1. when you heard the killing

  2. when you saw the killing

  3. when you suspect that it was not discarded meat and it was killed intentionally and specifically for you

Thanks and regards,