SuttaCentral
Hi Matt
thanks for your discussion of vegetarianism
I have heard this said about Devadatta and the Buddha many times and have said it many times and am trying to back up my beliefs with evidence. I can’t find the reference for this belief and am starting to think it is commentarial.
Do you know the reference?
best wishes
It’s in the Saṅghabheda section of the Vinaya’s Cūḷavagga and the 10th saṅghādisesa rule in the Bhikkhuvibhaṅga.
If the monks were forest-dwellers for life, and whoever enters a village would commit an offense
If they were alms-collectors for life, and whoever accepts an invitation would commit an offense
If they were rag-robe wearers for life, and whoever accepts a robe from a lay person would commit an offense
If they dwelt at the foot of a tree for life, and whoever takes shelter would commit an offense
If they did not eat fish and meat for life, and whoever does would commit an offense.’…Devadatta and his followers then went to the Master, bowed down to him, and sat down to one side. And Devadatta made his request. The Master replied, “No, Devadatta. Those who wish may be forest-dwellers, and those who wish may live near a village. Those who wish may be alms-collectors, and those who wish may accept invitations. Those who wish may be rag-robe wearers, and those who wish may accept robes from lay people. I have allowed dwelling at the foot of a tree for eight months of the year, as well as fish and meat which are pure in three respects: one has not seen, heard, or suspected that the animal was specifically killed to feed a monastic.”
Devadatta thought, “The Master doesn’t allow the five points,” and he was glad and elated.
thanks very much
This is the link directly to the English paragraph:
Note that this is specifically in the context of the samana culture where the primary rule was effectively ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. The essence of this rule seems to be that you cannot accept any food which contributes to death. But if they have made the food already, and you turn up at the door, and they offer you a little bit, then you are not doing something that will result in more death. Basically, you are not allowed to be choosy - you have to accept anything offered, unless you are causing harm by accepting (which for sure you would be doing if for example you eat in a monastery kitchen which regularly serves meat, as I have seen in Thai and Tibetan monasteries).
This is entirely different from lay people actively buying meat, and therefore directly sponsoring torture and murder. People seem to maintain a lot of cognitive dissonance to protect their sensual desires for meat eating on this point. It is so interesting that many Buddhists actually believe that sponsoring torture and murder is in line with the Buddha’s teachings.
Out of interest, does anyone have any example of where the Buddha or his monks were not simply given meat when begging, but specifically given a meal with meat after having been invited to a meal with advanced warning? I have never seen such an example. Was it common? Or do we have any such examples in the EBTs?
A very interesting essay. See this quote:
It seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us … and my heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the villager’s meal - frogs again.
It sounds very much like he really wanted to eat the turkey (sensual craving), and he would have been happy for the turkey to be killed in order to satiate his sensual craving. Even the idea of that being getting killed so he could consume it sounded to him “too good to be true”.
So what stopped him? Apparently, he took his monks vows as a higher priority - he wanted it to be killed, but he did not want to break the rule - so inconvenient that they had offered to kill it especially for them! Because if the farmer had not told him he was killing it for them, Ajahn would not have broken his rule by eating it!
You see, this is a very selfish motivation indeed. He wanted it to be killed to satiate his sense desire. But he did not want the negative effect on himself, of breaking a rule. He would have been quite happy if someone had just killed the being without telling him.
This is precisely the view that I have heard from another Thai Buddhist recently. But I am genuinely unconvinced that this is what the Buddha meant! It’s just like people who avoid tax with offshore bank accounts.
Or are we going to say that the idea of Buddhist ethics is in fact not that we should want other beings to not suffer? Just that would should avoid ourselves getting a bad effect by breaking a rule, but no problem at all if we sponsor torture and murder of beings we don’t have direct knowledge of? Or even as monks, that it’s fine to encourage our lay followers to buy meat for us, so it’s them, or the butchers, who are kammically responsible for the deaths? So we actually don’t care that we are genuinely causing so much torture and death by our actions, because, we don’t get the kamma for it?
Are Buddhist ethics really just about a selfish endeavour to make sure I don’t personally get bad kammic consequences? While actually causing torture and death is fine, so long as it doesn’t come back to me?
AN 8.12
… He said to the Buddha: “Sir, may the Buddha together with the mendicant Saṅgha please accept tomorrow’s meal from me.” The Buddha consented in silence. Then, knowing that the Buddha had accepted, Sīha got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right, before leaving.
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.”
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 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, baseless, 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.
@vimalanyani, I do not get what point you are trying to make. That sutta does not give any evidence of the Buddha or his monks either eating, or being served, meat. It gives a story of some Jains giving a story about meat eating, and the Buddha responding:
“Enough, sir. For a long time those venerables have wanted to discredit the Buddha, his teaching, and his Saṅgha.
Alaṃ ayyo dīgharattañhi te āyasmanto avaṇṇakāmā buddhassa avaṇṇakāmā dhammassa avaṇṇakāmā saṅghassa.They’ll never stop misrepresenting the Buddha with their false, baseless, lying, untruthful claims.
Na ca panete āyasmanto jiridanti taṃ bhagavantaṃ asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhituṃ;
So far as I can see in this sutta there no evidence that there was any meat in the meal at all.
You asked about “a meal with meat”. General Siha invited the Buddha and his sangha, and then prepared meat.
Then Sīha addressed a certain man: “Mister, please find out if there is any meat ready for sale.”
Clearly the context implies meat for the Buddha and the sangha.
(Also on a side note, it is Siha who responds with the part you have quoted, not the Buddha.)
Ah yes, good point. So then, it seems there was most probably meat in the meal. However, there is no evidence that the Buddha knew that there was going to be. No evidence that he was there when Sīha said that, or ever heard about it before the meal apparently.
But it does seem to be evidence of them having meat in a meal they were invited to.
I think he received the invitation on their first meeting. This may be significant, as he would seem to have been unfamiliar with the Buddha’s teachings. Since as samanas they had to accept what they were given, and since we don’t have evidence (so far as I can tell) that they knew they were going to be served meat, this seems logical that they would accept it.
What would be interesting would be to see if any of the people who were already familiar with his teachings, would ever serve him meat. For example, was he ever invited a second time by Sīha? If so, was there meat that or any future time? Or, of any of the advanced lay followers, such as those who did jhāna practice, do we ever heard of any of them eating meat?
I am wondering who nowadays can eat a blameless food as described by MN55?
It never occurs to them: ‘It’s so good that this householder serves me with delicious alms-food! I hope they serve me with such delicious alms-food in the future!’ They don’t think that. They eat that alms-food untied, unstupefied, unattached, seeing the drawback, and understanding the escape. (MN55)
How many people nowadays can have this state of mind all the time?
“They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will” (MN55)
When we eat those meats/fishes…, have we ever seen that our minds are “untied, unstupefied, unattached, seeing the drawback, and understanding the escape”? or we really enjoy their tastes/smells and want to continue having those delicious meals because they are allowed?
When we eat those meats/fishes…, have we ever notified the state of our mind at that time? Is it full of compassion for those beings who were sacrified their lives for our survival? Have we ever had any appreciation towards those beings? or we are busy enjoying the delicious tastes/smells of their meats, or we do not care about it because it is allowed? or we may think that meats are simply there for us to consume blamelessly as long as we are not responsible for them?
Have we ever feel the pains, the fears of those beings who were sacrificed their lives for our survival while we are consuming their meats?
When we eat those meats/fishes…, what are the drawback and the escape that we have realized? Be honest to ourselves!
If we cannot eat a blameless food, should we continue to eat those blameable foods simply because they are allowed or should we pick a less blameable food (if we can choose or it is good enough) for our survivals until we can really eat a blameless food?
Not sure about that. General Siha had become a stream-enterer just before inviting the Buddha:
Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in General Sīha: “Everything that has a beginning has an end.”
And he was well aware of the precept against killing:
We would never deliberately take the life of a living creature, not even for life’s sake.
See the beginning of the sutta:
On that occasion Sīha the general, a disciple of the Nigaṇṭhas,
He was not Buddhist. And it seems obvious that he had never met the Buddha. He asks for permission to meet him, more than once. On the third time he decides:
What can the Nigaṇṭhas do to me whether or not I obtain their permission? Without having obtained the permission of the Nigaṇṭhas, let me go see that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One.”
This shows he had never met the Buddha before.
Then after a brief discussion, he attains stream entry:
Then, just as a clean cloth rid of dark spots would readily absorb dye, so too, while Sīha the general sat in that same seat, there arose in him the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye
So, when I say he was unfamiliar with the teachings, I mean that he had been receiving the teachings for… well at the most, less than a day. Perhaps even less than an hour. Not enough, we may assume, to have extensive knowledge of the doctrine!
Hmm, very interesting! I will give a fuller quote:
Sīha speaking:
“Enough, good man. For a long time those venerable ones have wanted to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha. They will never stop misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is untrue, baseless, false, and contrary to fact, and we would never intentionally deprive a living being of life, even for the sake of our life.”
Notice that we, not he! That means he is saying that he, Sīha, and whomever else he is referring to with ‘we’, would not “intentionally deprive a living being of life”. This is very interesting! Why? Because that attitude would fit with him having been a Jain also. Jains are strict vegetarians, I believe. So this makes me wonder if this text is corrupt.
The troublemakers made the lie about the Buddha knowing he was going to be served meat. That makes sense. And now we have the host saying he would “never deliberately take the life of a living creature, not even for life’s sake”. And that totally fits with him having been a Jain. And the one thing that doesn’t fit, is that they were served meat in the meal. Could that one word be an error?
Does anyone know about the āgama parallels for this sutta, and what they have to say about it?
[Edit: just checked MA 18 - it has the whole story of Sīha asking permission, visiting the Buddha, getting awakened, but NOT any story about meat or even a meal! This is interesting, and brings the possibility that that part of the story was not original, possibly added later.
I have not checked the other parallels as I don’t think I have translations of them.]
I agree; it is strange that a life-long Jain (who are vegetarians, perhaps even vegans) would all of a sudden seek out meat. There is nothing in the sermon of the Buddha that would make one want to run to the market and get meat; why not veggies, rice gruel, etc.?
According to 3 fold rule, monastics accept and eat what is offered. For lay people, it’s not so clear. It is true that the meat in a supermarket is already dead, we can’t bring it back to life, but we can make it so less animals are killed in the future.
This causal connection is often debated but it’s really not that complicated:
100 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket one day.
Later that day the grocer requests 100 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
Later as time goes on, meat demand drops.
50 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket in an average day.
Later that day the grocer requests only 50 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
That’s 50 less chickens killed at the slaughter house due to the less demand from that grocer.
And so on, either upwards or downwards in demand . . .
“Sure, you can argue that eating meat is allowable. You can get away with it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. What if we ask, not what can I get away with, but what can I aspire to?” Ajahn Sujato
“Many people find that as they develop in the Dhamma that they have a natural tendency to move toward vegetarianism.”Ven Dhammika
Generally I think the spirit of the precepts reflects harmlessness, which is an aspect of Right Intention. We try not to cause harm to ourselves or to other beings.
There was the 3-fold rule, the purpose of which seems to have been to minimise the slaughter of animals for food. In modern terms this might equate to not buying meat when alternatives are available.
If we do choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood ( butchery ). For some Buddhists that will be problematic.
I just saw you quote of my typo - sorry about that! "Notice that we we, not we! " was meant to be "Notice that we, not he! " I corrected it now 
Yes it’s really really simple, I would expect any 12 year old school kid to grasp this in under 2 minutes! But I think that is the power that sensual greed and desire has to subvert intelligence and logic. It is truly amazing in terms of psychology, how people devoted to a religion which teaches non-violence, can justify to themselves their sponsorship of torture and murder. It really shows us something interesting about the human mind and how we can have views that are so disconnected from reality. I think it’s a good lesson for us, since there are many such distortions we create in our minds, many aspects to our ‘shadow’ that we deny even to ourselves.
It can be similar with sexual abuse, people justifying harming others due to their strong sensual desires. And this is a good example actually. If we look to the Muslim world, in many parts of it at least (including in London), there is a lot of domestic violence. So there are two factors - they have religions texts telling them domestic violence is allowed, even prescribed (beating your wife for example, as well as her being obliged to have sex). And on top of that, you have it being common, and people accepting it (even in London it is way more acceptable in Muslim neighbourhoods). So, you have the support of your religious authority, and your community, so it seems fine.
And that’s what we have in Buddhism - many monks and lamas and so on, saying its fine to eat meat, and eating meat themselves. And the communities eating meat. So, it seems fine.
And now the ‘me too’ movement is changing the community view, and also the laws are way stricter. The West used to be more accepting of domestic violence, perhaps similar to some Muslim communities now. But things have changed a lot over the last decades, and especially now, society’s view have been changing more and more, and the negative effects of the violence are being made more apparent. And suddenly rape and beating seem a lot less acceptable than they used to be. And many people start to feel that. Their actual feeling about how ok rape and beating are, changes. Because of the influence other people’s views and feelings have on them, when they are no longer blind to that.
And then when they look back, they are astounded - how did people ever think it was logically ok to beat and rape women? To own slaves? Etc. (Animal torture and murder will be next).
There are parallels with Buddhism on that too - now more monks are becoming vegetarian. Many Tibetan monks and lamas for example, are realizing how ludicrous their desire-based meat arguments are, and are starting to follow the actual teachings about meat in their form of Buddhism. So, gradually some of the cognitive dissonance is being renounced.
I find it very hard to imagine a situation where there are no alternatives. Many vegetarians have travelled all across the world and not died of starvation. And I am not sure the rule about killing includes such an idea. Like, ‘don’t kill, unless it makes you mildly uncomfortable for a few hours.’
I would find it more likely to equate to “don’t buy meat” (unless it is road kill etc.).
…what an elegant phrase. Succinct, full of meaning, compassionate, DIY encouraging. Thank you!
I agree, but I have seen people get very pedantic about the 3-fold rule when trying to justify buying meat.