The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating

Asanga Tilakaratne *
< >

. Introduction . What do the texts say? . Eating meat in monastic context and beyond

. The last meal of the Buddha . Conclusion

* Professor of Buddhist Studies, University of Colombo Sri Lanka.

- 77 -

78 50
. Introduction

Debates and disputes over the practice of meat eating have been continuous in the history of Buddhism. In a multireligious context with divergent views and practices, it was necessary for the Buddha to clarify his position regarding this issue from the very beginning. In particular, extreme form of nonviolence adopted by Jainism, the main Sramana rival of Buddhism during the time of the Buddha, necessitated the Buddha to articulate his position clearly. With the advent of Mahayana with its clear cut negative position on meat eating, in particular by the monastic disciples of the Buddha, Buddhists were clearly divided into two sides. More recently with advanced ideas and attitudes toward protecting and preserving nature there has been renewed interest on both vegetarianism in itself and the environment including all living beings who inhabit the planet. In this new perspective Buddhism has been viewed as an enlightening philosophy due to its emphasis on nonviolence and its world view which encompasses all sentient beings. Contrasted with religions believing in Creation Buddhism does not have a mancentred worldview according which all other living were created for the sake of man. Nor does it hold a view of supremacy of human being which allows him to exploit the environment for his own gain. The idea of dependent co origination portrays reality as interdependent and interconnected. With these enlightening and naturefriendly characteristics one would expect Buddhism to be naturally advocating vegetarianism. But the dilemma is that it has not been so. Although the later Mahayana adopted vegetarianism the early schools have not been quite clear on the issue. The challenge is to understand this apparently contradictory situation found in early Buddhism. In the present paper I will try to understand the position adopted in the early phase of Buddhism including Theravada on meat eating. It is hoped that a study of the early standpoint may contribute to understand the later developments in the practice.

- 78 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 79

. What do the texts say?

In trying to understand the early Buddhist position regarding meat eating we need to examine evidence form the basic canonical texts attributed to the Buddha himself. (1) The Jivakasutta of the Majjhima nikaya (55) is the locus classicus of the Buddhas most direct explanation on the question of meat eating. According to this discourse, Jivaka, the physician, asks from the Buddha whether or not the rumour is true that the Buddha would knowingly eat meat of animals killed specifically for him. The Buddha says that the rumour is not true and then explains his position on the matter:
Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances (bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi: 1995/2001 p.474).

From this explanation it is very clear that the Buddha does not reject the possibility of eating meat altogether. In fact it admits that there are conditions under which meat eating is permissible. The Buddha does not give a categorical answer for Jivakas question. Of the four modes of answering questions1) the Buddha in this context seems to have adopted the method of answering a question by analyzing it (vibhajja vyakaraniya= to be answered having analysed [the question] ). Without categorically prohibiting the practice the Buddha provides a conditional answer. Any meat meeting the three conditions given has been described
1) The other three being, questions to be answered directly (ekmasa vyakaraniya), questions to be answered by asking a question (patipuccha vyakaraniya) and question to be set aside (thapaniya). The four modes are mentioned in the Anguttaranikaya II, p.46.
- 79 -

80 50

in the Vinaya as fish and meat purified in three corners (tikoti parisuddha macchamamsa) (Vinaya II. P.197). In the discourse the Buddha further explains how meat cleared from these three perspectives is found by a monk. It is important to note that the monk described here is one who is practising loving kindness (metta) to all beings. He is described in the following words:
Here Jivaka, some bhikkhu lives in dependence upon a certain village or town. He abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving kindness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, so above below around and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving kindness (Bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi 1995/2001, p.474).

Now such a monk is invited by a householder for a meal, and when he visits the householder he is offered with good almsfood. Upon receiving this almsfood the monk does not become overjoyed by this offering, does not generate desire to receive such almsfood in future but consumes it without being tied to it, infatuated with it, and utterly committed to it, seeing the danger in it and understanding the escape from it. The Buddha asks from Jivaka, whether such monk in doing so would be doing something harmful for oneself, the other or both oneself and the other. Jivaka answers in the negative. The Buddha asks from Jivaka whether or not such a monk sustains himself with blameless food on that occasion. To this Jivaka responds by admitting that such a food is blameless. Then the Buddha goes on to show that the same applies to a monk who practices the rest of the sublime mode of living (brahmavihara), namely, compassion (karuna), altruistic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha). In concluding the discussion the Buddha identifies five stages in which one accrues much demerit if one were to slaughter a living being for the Buddha or his disciple. The five stages are: in saying go and fetch that living being one accrues demerit in the first instance; the second instance is when the living being experiences pain on being led along with a neck halter; the third is when he orders someone to slaughter the living
- 80 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 81

being; the fourth is when that living being experiences pain and grief on being slaughtered; and the fifth instance is when he provides the Buddha or his disciple with that unwarranted food. The discourse is concluded with Jivaka being satisfied that the monks sustain themselves with permissible and blameless food. Although this discourse is the key place where the Buddha discusses the delicate issue of meat eating we have to remember that the discourse addresses only a limited context, namely that of the monastic life. In this sense the Discourse is not a discussion of the general issue of meat eating applicable to both lay and monastic groups. The Discourse views the problem from a point of view of a monastic follower. Even that follower, according to the Discourse, is not an ordinary one but an exemplary person who is so developed as to pervade the four sublime states to the entire universe without any limit. For such a person eating is only for the sustenance of life. He does not generate any of the desires an ordinary person is bound to generate on food. He eats it with understanding the dangers associated with it and with an eye for escape from the samsaric existence which requires one to engage in manifold activities including eating food. Now for such a person what he eats cannot have any special significance. It would not really matter whether he eats a meal with meat or without meat; a splendid meal or ordinary meal. This part of the discussion suggests that not only the meal has to be cleared of three corners but also the one who consumes it has to be endowed with exemplary qualities of monastic life. The attitude toward food articulated in the Jivakasutta has been the general attitude adopted by the monastic community throughout its history. In the Theravada monastic life monks are expected to do what is called reflection (paccavekkhana) when one uses the four requisites of life, namely, clothes, food, lodging and medicine. The idea is that a monk must always have in his mind that he uses these requisites only to satisfy the basic needs that they are meant to satisfy. Accordingly, the clothes are only for the protection of the body from external influences, and for
- 81 -

<Discussion1>

82 50

covering oneself. Food is only for the sustenance of life. The lodging is only for the protection and for seclusion. And the medicine is only for the cure of illnesses. The particular formula to be used in reflecting on food runs as follows: Having reflected wisely I consume this food. This food is not for sport, not for intoxication, not for beautification, not for adornment. I take this food only for the endurance and continuance of this body, for ending discomfort, and for assisting the holy life, considering: Thus I shall terminate old feelings without arousing new feelings, and I shall be healthy and blameless and shall live in comfort2). The idea is that when a person takes food from the perspective as described above the quality or the type of food one eats seems to have not much significance. The situation emerging is not that of: people give and I eat [I do not have a responsibility] which is easy. But it is the following: people give; I have not seen or heard that it was killed for me and I have no suspicion that it was killed for me; so I eat. In monastic life it is difficult to separate the issue of eating meat from the attitude toward food prescribed by the Buddha for the monks and nuns. In addition to the abovediscussed wise reflection this attitude has been forcefully articulated in the Discourse on the Simile of Sons Flesh (puttamansupamasutta3)). In order to explain the attitude toward gross food (kabalinkaraahara) that a monk should adopt, the Buddha brings out the parable of parents who ate their own sons flesh in order to survive a deadly desert. The Buddha asks from the monks:
What do you attractiveness? No, venerable sir Wouldnt they eat that food only for the sake of crossing the desert? think, bhikkhus? Would they eat that food for amusement or for enjoyment or for the sake of physical beauty and

2) This formula in the first person has been adopted from the early discourses such as the Sekhasutta of the Majjhimanikaya (53) where the Buddha describes moderation in eating (bhojane mattannuta) to be practiced by a monk. 3) Samyuttanikaya II, pp.97100.
- 82 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 83

Yes, venerable sir It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment edible food should be seen4).

Eating is only for the survival and for nothing else. In particular food is not meant for increasing ones desire for sensory gratification. The attitude advocated, no doubt, is for those who have renounced their worldly life. (2) The next important canonical discussion on the issue of meat eating occurs in the Vinaya Cullavaggapali (Vinaya II. P.197). Here Devadatta, who is known in the Buddhist tradition for being the enemy of the Buddha, is seen as making five requests from the Buddha, namely, that the monks should live their entire life in the forest, on almsfood (panda pata), wearing ragrobes, dwelling at the root of trees, and that they should never eat fish or meat (machamamsam na khadeyya).In presenting these five proposals Devadatta reminds the Buddha that the latter praises so much the simple and contended life with less wants and these request are conducive for the development of such virtues. The Buddhas response to Devadatta was that the monks should observe the first four of these practices on their own discretion, and the fifth on fish and meat eating is permissible provided that it satisfies the three conditions (mentioned already)5). The context of the present episode too is monastic life. Devadattas requests are not for all the followers of the Buddha but only for the monastic followers. Inclusion of meat eating in the list of requests suggests that fish and meat were considered as part of good meal (panita bhojana). But as we found in the above discussion whether it is splendid or ordinary would not matter for one who eats his food with wise reflection.
4) Bhikkhu Bodhi (2000), p.598. 5) Tikotiparisuddham macchamamsam adittham asutam aparisankitam = fish and meat purified in three corners, not seen, not heard, and not suspected. Vinaya II, p.197.
- 83 -

<Discussion2>

(3) The Discourse on carrionsmell (aamagandhasutta) of the Sutta

84 50

nipata (239252) contains an interesting discussion where fish and meat eating has been given a figurative interpretation. The Discourse, according to the commentary, is presented as the response of the former Buddha Kassapa to a question posed by the Brahmin named Tissa. The present Buddha is said to have quoted it when a Brahmin named Amagandha (smell of rawmeat!) questioned him on the appropriateness of meat eating. The question put to the Kassapa Buddha: What is raw meat smell in your opinion? The question is prefaced with the information that while virtuous religious people consume food prepared by various kinds of grain, some consume foul smelling meat. To this the Buddha answers first by describing what smell of raw meat is. The smell of raw meat is not eating meat but such vices as destroying life, torture, mutilation of limbs, tying, stealing, falsehood, fraud and deceit, study of worthless teachings, adultery, being unrestrained in sensual pleasures, being greedy, wicked, backbiting, treacherous and the like. The discourse presents a long list of vices that are considered as true foul smell of raw meat, and reiterates that meat eating itself is not foul smell of raw meat. The explanation is concluded with statement emphasizing the uselessness of adhering to rites and rituals: Not abstaining from the eating of fish and flesh, not fasting, nakedness, shaving of the head, matted hair,, layer of dirt (on the body), or rough antelope skins, not the tending of the sacrificial fire, the many austere forms of penance in the world, incantations, oblations, sacrifice, observance of seasonal penances (can) purify that mortal who has not overcome his doubts. One shall fare guarded in the streams (of the senses) and with (full) comprehension of the faculties, standing firm in the truth and delighting in rectitude and gentleness, going beyond clinging and with all ills eliminated, he that is wise is not sullied by what is seen and heard (Jayawickrama 2001: p.98). In the discourse the Buddha Kassapa is addressed by the interlocutor, Tissa, the brahmin, as relative of Brahma (brahmabandhu) indicating that he too belonged in the Brahmanic caste. The commentary in fact
- 84 -

<Discussion3>

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 85

confirms that the Buddha Kassapa was of Brahmin origin. Thus the dialogue is between two Brahmins. This Brahmanic connection may have to be understood as a way of responding to Brahmins who adhered to vegetarianism and looked down upon the followers of the Buddha who consumed fish and meat. Here the Buddha is giving an ethical interpretation, which is quite new, to meat eating. Nothing is mentioned about meat eating in the discourse. The very terminology the fowl smell of raw meat or carrion smell as Jayawickrama translates it, is a term lauded with assumptions. The very terminology says that eating meat is unacceptable. The metaphor of smell makes more sense in the context of Brahmins who were obsessed with physical purity and observed many rites and rituals associated with symbolic purity. Here the Buddha is seen to be attributing a totally new meaning to the term and saying that what really matters is not any physical smell caused by eating meat but impurity or bad smell caused by evil behaviour. This manner of giving new interpretation to old concepts is not unfamiliar in the discourses of the Buddha. Some well known examples are the Wasalasutta redefining who an outcaste is, the Vasetthasutta (of the Majjhimanikaya and the Suttanipata) redefining true Brahmin, and the Sigalovadasutta (of the Dighanikaya) reinterpreting the act of worshipping directions. The reason why the discourse has been attributed to the former Buddha Kassapa may be to give the discussion an added historical significance by suggesting that the standpoint regarding meat eating is not something new or arbitrary on the part of the Buddha Gotama who belonged in the Worrier caste, but to Kassapa the Buddha who belonged in the Brahmin caste.
. Eating meat in monastic context and beyond

It is interesting to note that there is hardly any discussion in the Theravada on meat eating outside the monastic context. Instead what has been really discussed is harming and killing of life and how bad such an act morally is. The first precept in the sila (morality) is to abstain from killing. In the fiveprecept formula it is given as panaatipata or killing of life. The term pana (life) refers to life; but does not specify which
- 85 -

86 50

kind of life. But the context and elaborations found in discourses show that what is meant is all living beings, human beings, birds, beasts, reptiles, insects etc. The texts do not allude to plant life in this context. The positive aspect of this precept is described in the following manner: Abandoning the taking of life, he dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword, scrupulous, compassionate, feeling for the welfare of all living beings6). The first precept has been traditionally understood, in its positive manifestation, as involving active practice of kindness towards all living beings. The wellknown Karaniyamettasutta too can be considered as an elaboration of the positive implementation of the same precept. Although meateating is not specifically mentioned the Discourse stresses that one must love all being as a mother would love her only son (mata yatha niyam puttamayusa ekaputtam anurakkhe evampi sabbabhutesu manasam bhavaye aparimanam). Among the five prohibited trades for the lay people, selling meat is one. Thus in a true Buddhist society nobody will kill animals, birds, fish or any other living being and nobody will sell such meat. If this situation obtains there cannot arise a question of meat eating for there is none such to be eaten. But it is clear that this ideal situation does not obtain. One way to explain how meat is there to be bought is that the entire society at any given context has never been totally Buddhist or full of true Buddhists who follow the Path flawlessly. Fishing and killing animals and birds for food have been there always in societies though it is imaginable in a Buddhist society such livelihood might not have been encouraged. The whole idea of meat purified in three corners assumes that such meat for the killing of which one is not directly responsible is available. The idea of personal responsibility at issue here has to be understood correctly. It looks like that what the early discourses and the Theravada tradition take as responsibility is ones direct personal responsibility. The indirect responsibility, which is implicit in meat purified in three corners, does not seem to have been acknowledged in the tradition at all. As the popular argument correctly shows the demand and supply theory is at work here,
6) Samannaphalasutta, Dighanikaya 2.
- 86 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 87

and in this sense no one who eats meet cannot escape the indirect responsibility for encouraging killing living beings. But to my knowledge this argument has never been recognized in the discourses. What instead one finds in the discourses is the attention for the direct personal involvement. For example, if the meat has been produced specifically for x then x is guilty if he were to consume it knowing that it has been specifically prepared for him. It would be appropriate to quote the commentarial explanation of meat purified in three corners in this context: In seen etc. seen means to have seen that animals and fish etc. being killed for the sake of monks. Heard means to have heard that animals and fish etc. have been killed for the sake of monks. Suspected is threefold as suspected by seeing, suspected by hearing, and suspected freed from both (seeing and hearing). The allencompassing judgment in this matter is as follows: Here the monks see people leaving village or going about in the forest carrying nets, baits etc.; on the next day in their almsround in the village monks receive food with fish and meat; then the monks become suspicious owing to seeing that this food must have been prepared for the sake of monks; this is suspected by seeing and such food is not good to accept. Food not suspected in this manner is good to accept. If people were to ask, why do you not accept this food, and monks were to say why, and if people were to respond by saying that the meat or fish was not prepared for the sake of monks but it was prepared for their own use or the use of royal officers then it is good to accept. Even if the monks did not see but they heard that people left village or went around in the forest with nets and baits etc. and in the next day if they were to receive food with fish and meat and the monks become suspicious owing to hearing that this food must have been prepared for the sake of monks, this is suspected by hearing and such food is not good to accept. Food not suspected in this manner is good to accept. If people were to ask, why do you not accept this food, and monks were to say why and if people were to respond by saying that the meat or fish was not prepared for the sake of monks but it was prepared for their own use or the use of royal officers then it is good to accept. Even if the monks did neither see nor hear, but became suspicious when they received food with fish and meat from the village and, then it is called suspected freed from both (seeing and hearing). If people were to
- 87 -

88 50

ask, why do you not accept this food, and monks were to say why and if people were to respond by saying that the meat or fish was not prepared for the sake of monks but it was prepared for their own use or the use of royal officers, or they were to say that the meat was natural and hence proper (for monks to accept) then it is good to accept7). The commentary in its subsequent analysis lays much stress on the knowledge factor involved in the process. A monk cannot accept meat or fish if he knows that it was prepared for him or for the Sangha. If he did not know then such food is no harm. If some monks knew but some others did not know it and if those who did not know were to eat they would not be guilty, but those who knew would be guilty if they ate. Here again this emphasis made of knowing or notknowing makes guilt purely dependent on psychological factors. The commentary brings up the hypothetical situation of a particular monk receiving food with meat or fish and knowing that it was specifically prepared for him would give that food to another monk who would eat it trusting the giver and asks who is guilty. The question is answered by saying that neither is for the one who accepted did not eat and the one who ate did not know. The knowledgefactor involved may be articulated in the following manner: either one should know for sure that the killing was not done for oneself or the community, or one should not know that the killing was done specifically for oneself or the community. These two conditions are different from each other although they may look alike. While the first is not guilty owing to his knowledge the other is not guilty for his ignorance of the true situation. (It is according to this that a monk who accepts meat or fish specifically killed for him but assured by donors that it was not so is not guilty.) Although the knowledge factor is decisive in determining the guilt of one who eats what is prepared specifically for him, with the improper kinds of meat even if one were to not know that the meat is improper one would be guilty if one were to eat it. Therefore the commentary advises that one should always inquire about the kind of meat before one eats it. The improper kinds of meat have been listed in the Vinaya. The
7) Majjhimanikayaatthakatha II, pp.4748. (The translation is mine.)
- 88 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 89

first in the list is human flesh. The story of pious female disciple Suppiya who gave her own flesh to a sick monk caused this prohibition. The rest of prohibited meats include that of elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas8). In this context the Buddha cautions the monks not to eat meat without having carefully discerned (na ca bhikkhave apptivekkhitva mamsam paribhunjitabbam9)). Two important considerations emerge from the discussion: the guilt or otherwise of meat eating depends on knowledge or lack of it of the fact that it was prepared specifically for oneself or the Sangha and the appropriateness of the kind of meat offered. In other words, a monk is allowed to eat meat if he knows that it was appropriate meat not specifically prepared for him or if he knows that it was appropriate meat but does not know that it was prepared specifically for him. The question of appropriate meat is not applicable to lay society. At least the Buddha did not intend this classification for the lay society. Although the idea of meat purified in three corners too has been articulated in the context of monastic life it seems applicable to society at large. At least this is how the Buddhist society in general has interpreted this idea. Accordingly there has been some kind of uneasy existence of fishermen and butchers within Buddhist societies. In a way they seem to have provided with a valuable service to the rest of Buddhist community including the monks and nuns who wished to have it both ways! Nevertheless the social attitude toward these groups of people has always been one of disdain and dissociation. Understandably, in many Theravada Buddhist countries, including Sri Lanka, initial converts to theistic religions naturally came from among fishing folks from maritime regions. Even among the Buddhists who continue to be fishermen there seems to have developed certain traditions and conventions which are meant to mitigate the bad karma produced by killing. For example, it is reported that a fisherman would be quite vary of killing any living being other than fish or killing outside his profession.
8) Vinaya I, pp.216220. 9) Ibid. p.218.
- 89 -

90 50
. The last meal of the Buddha

In the Mahaparinibanasutta of the Dighanikaya (16) where the last days of the life of the Buddha are described it is said that immediately before the parinibbana next day early morning the Buddha accepted a meal prepared by person called Cunda. According to this account the meal consisted what is called sukaramaddava, and the Buddha had taken this particular meal only by himself and had instructed the donor to throw away any left over for it may not be digested by anyone else in the world. The discourse says that after this meal the already weak Buddha got weaker finally precipitating his demise. In the Buddhist tradition there has been considerable controversy as to what this particular meal was. The popular understanding has been that it is some kind of pork. Since the discourse does not provide us with any clue to determine what exactly this food is we need to consult the commentarial exegesis to see the tradition. The commentary to Dighanikaya says thus: sukara maddava is the flesh of single firstborn pig not too young, not too old, which had been received naturally (sukaramaddavanti natitarunassa natijinnassa eka jetthaka sukarassa pavatta mamsam10)). Having listed this initial meaning the commentary lists two other meanings to the term held by certain others: a preparation of softboiled rice cooked with five cowproducts; and a kind of alchemistic mixture described in the science of alchemy. In addition to these three meanings Dhammapala, in his commentary to the Udana adds a fourth possibility, namely, that it is young bamboo shoots tramples by pigs (sukarehi maddita vamsakaliro). While there is no ambiguity about the term sukara, maddava is open for debate. It can be derived from mudu (mild) and the noun deriving from this adjective is maddava meaning mildness or softness. It is according to this that sukaramaddava is understood as the soft flesh of a pig. Maddava could also be derived from the verb maddati which means to press or to trample. Alternative interpretation referred to by Dhammapala, the author the subcommentary, seems to derive from this
10) The Sumangalavilasini II, p.568.
- 90 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 91

second meaning. Discussing this term in his Milindapanha translation Rhys Davids notices this difficulty and referring to Sanskrit mardava which always means tender, he says that this could be even tender flowers11). In his Dighanikaya translation, which is later than the translation of the Milindapanha, Rhys Davids produces this additional information: Dr. Hoey informs me that the peasantry in these districts are still very fond of bulbous roots, a sort of truffle, found in the jungle, and called sukarakanda. Mr. K.E. Neumann, in his translation of the Majjhima (1896), p.xx, has collected several similar instances of truffle like roots, or edible plants, having such names.12) These interpretations given by both ancient and modern commentators betray some kind of ambiguity the Theravada tradition itself had on this issue. But the primary meaning assigned by the commentary is that it is some kind of pork. The subcommentary does not refer to any other meanings and directly describes sukaramaddava as soft meat of a wild bore (vanavarahassa mudumamsam13)). This shows that the tradition was fairly sure that the meal was some kind of pork. The discourse itself says that that physical pain of the Buddha aggravated after he ate this food. Both the commentary and the sub commentary comment on this by pointing out that there was no causal connection between eating pork and aggravation of the pain. The commentary says that the Buddha did not have this aggravated pain due to eating. But in fact the Buddha had less pain because he had this mild meal. The pain of the Buddha would have been more severe had he not eaten this, says the commentary14). The subcommentary glosses over this further, and says that one must not think that even the Buddha could not digest it (which, according to the discourse, the Buddha had claimed nobody else would be able to digest it). The Buddha in fact digested it,
11) The Questions of King Milinda, p.244 (footnote # 1). 12) Dialogues of the Buddha II 1910/1977. p.137 (footnote # 1). 13) Dighaatthakathatika I, p.218. 14) The Sumangalavilasini II, p.568.
- 91 -

92 50

and hence the absence of any disturbance and softening of the disturbance caused due to other conditions, says the subcommentary. This later exegetical urge to dissociate the demise of the Buddha from his eating pork suggests that by this time the apparent connection between the two events had been perceived as embarrassing. However, one cannot get the same feeling when one reads the discourse itself. It directly links, without any obvious sense of discomfort, aggravation of the pain which ended in the demise of the Buddha to his last meal. There is no any evidence that the Theravada tradition was hesitant to acknowledge the relation between the Buddhas demise and his last meal of pork. The subcommentary makes it very clear that the donor being a stream winner prepared this food from natural meat (meaning meat not violating any of the three criteria)15). If the meat was purified with three corners there is nothing to worry about it. The fact that it aggravated the situation of the Buddha, who clearly knew what exactly he was doing, and finally precipitated his demise, is to be understood as a series of events causally conditioned. The tradition has taken tremendous effort to exonerate the donor from any wrong doing or any reproach from the posterity. It is said that the Buddha exalted this last meal and the very first meal he had immediately before his enlightenment as the highest acts of almsgiving. In a later period this tradition has come under scrutiny of King Milinda who questioned from Nagasena how this could be since the last meal turned to poison, gave rise to disease, put an end to the period of his [the Buddhas] then existence, took away his life. The latter provides the following explanation: It was not because of it that any sickness fell upon the Blessed One, but it was because of the extreme weakness of his body and because of the period of life he had to live having been exhausted, that the disease arose, and grew worse and worse just as when, O King, an ordinary fire is burning, if fresh fuel be supplied, it will burn up still
15) Dighaatthakathatika, p.218.
- 92 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 93

more or as when a stream is flowing along as usual, if a heavy rain falls, it will become a mighty river with a great rush of water or as when the body is of its ordinary girth, if more food be eaten, it becomes broader than before. So this was not, O King, the fault of the food that was presented, and you can not impute any harm to it16). This explanation is essentially a continuation of the tradition of denying any causal relation between the two events and exonerating the donor. Although the latter purpose may have been served, whether or not the explanations of this sort are effective in denying the direct relation this food had with aggravating the situation of the Buddha remains uncertain.
. Conclusion

The mainstream Mahayana tradition has advocated vegetarianism, and consequently meateating has come under severe criticism in the Mahayana literature. The eighth chapter of the Lnakavatarasutra contains a scathing attack on meateaters. Scholars such as Kalupahana think that the connection of the Sutra to Lanka, which has been the main centre of Theravada, and its attack on meateating are not accidental17). The target of Lankavatara could well be the Theravada tradition which thrived in Sri Lanka since the 3rd century B.C.E.. What would be the Theravada position on meat eating? It is clear that the position is not at all an outright prohibition. Nor is the position an unconditional approval. The three criteria established surely limit ones direct involvement in killing beings for food. The three criteria have been given for the monks and nuns. A community of people who depended on others for their livelihood does not seem to have much choice in this regard. It is very appropriate for them to choose houses; nor is it appropriate for them to look for preferences in food. Discussing vegetarianism in Buddhist monastic life Damien Keown makes the following observations:
16) The Questions of the King Milinda I (Tr.) Rhys Davids (reprinted) 1977. pp. 244245. 17) Kalupahana (1992), pp.241246.
- 93 -

94 50

The earliest sources depict the Buddha as following a non vegetarian diet and even resisting an attempt to make vegetarianism compulsory for monks. Many take this as confirmation that the Buddha had no objection to meateating, but it may equally well have been the case that since meateating was a widespread and accepted practice in the Buddhas time, accepting meat in alms was allowed for practical purposes18). Furthermore, one could argue that if food was consumed reflecting wisely, as we discussed above, what one eats or whether what one eats is exquisite or ordinary would not matter. Seyfort Ruegg highlights some additional considerations regarding the Theravada (early Vinaya) position: as an almsman the Bhikkhu was not only dependent on the offerings he received on his begging rounds, but that as a person to be honoured (dakkhineyya) and a field of merit (punnakkhetta) he was morally bound to accept any alms offered in good faith by a pious donor and that if he failed to do so he was interfering with the karmic fruit and just reward that the donor was entitled to expect. Finally since in Buddhist thought it is the intention with which an act is accomplished that determines its moral and karmic quality, the Bhikkhus accepting and eating meat in the conditions specified above cannot be dismissed as necessarily a mere subterfuge allowing him to circumvent some share of responsibility in a series of acts involving vihimsa at an earlier stage19). All these are clearly meant for the monastic community. What about meateating as a practice in society at large? In the five precepts (pancasila) the first being abstaining from taking life vegetarianism seems almost a corollary of it. This is further supported by prohibition of selling meat as a livelihood for the followers of the Buddha. But as found earlier in this discussion the Buddha has not discussed the specific problem of meat eating as applicable to the whole society. What we have in the Theravada tradition in this regard is not a wellarticulated theory or a principle, but some attitudes and practices.
18) Damian Keown (2005), pp.4849. 19) Seyfort Reugg (1980). p.239.
- 94 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 95

There are Jataka stories detailing the dangers of being addicted to meat eating. Dharmadvaja Jataka (219) refers to a king who resorted to cannibalism when he could not find any meat for his meal. In the opposite direction, a child is eulogized in the Sri Lanka commentarial literature for not killing an animal even to save his mothers life. In the recorded history some of the earliest examples of kindness to animals are available from the ancient Sri Lanka. Devanampiya Tissa, the first king to be converted to Buddhism, declared the reservoir called Abhaya a sanctuary for the fish in there. Many subsequent rulers in Sri Lanka enacted a public decree called maghata (dont kill!) in the entire country or in limited areas. This does not necessarily mean that they adopted vegetarianism. Nonetheless, they seem to have understood the teaching of the Buddha as advocating restraint in food including meateating. Emperor Asoka who followed the teaching of the Buddha refers to non violence (ahimsa) in many of his edicts. In particular, in his first rock edict he says that the number of animals and birds killed for the royal kitchen has been reduced to three and that even that number will come to stop very soon. All these instances point to a very humane and kind attitude toward beings killed for food. As the wellknown statement in the Karaniya mettasutta says one should wish for the wellbeing of all beings (including those that are killed for food). The optimum state is one without any being killed for food. But the Buddha never made this a law. In particular he did not make regulations for the lay people (simply because the lay society was beyond the jurisdiction of the Buddha). Therefore the Buddhist position toward meateating as applicable to society at large is characterized by moderation, restraint and non addiction, steps which could lead ultimately to complete abandoning of food related desire including that for meat.

- 95 -

96 50
<Reference>

(All Pali works referred to are Pali Text Society (PTS) editions. They will not be listed specifically here. Please see below for their translations.) Bodhi, Bhikkhu. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: Wisdom Publications, Sommerville, MA. 2000. Davids, Rhys. Dialogues of the Buddha II(PTS edition, 1910/1977): The Questions of the King Milinda (reprinted) 1977. Jayawickrama, N.A. Suttanipata: Text and Translation(Colombo: Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, 2001). Kalupahana, David J. A, History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992). Keown, Damien. Buddhist Ethics A Very Short Introduction(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Nanamoli, Bhikkhu & Bodhi, Bhikkhu. The Middle Length sayings of the Buddha(Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995/2001) Ruegg, D.Seyfort, Ahimsa and Vegetarianism in the History of Buddhism in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula, ed. Somaratne Balasuriya et al(London: Gordon Frazer, 1980). Walshe, Maurice. Thus Have I Heard: The Long Discourses of the Buddha(London: Wisdom Publications 1987).

- 96 -

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating 97

Abstract

The Theravada Standpoint on Meat Eating

Asanga Tilakaratne

This paper examines the issue of meeteating in the Theravada tradition. The paper discusses three key textual instances relevant for the issue. The first is the discussion, occurring in the Jivakasutta of the Majjhimanikaya, between Jivaka, the Buddha Buddhas physician, and the Buddha. Here the Buddha comes up with the idea of fish and meat purified in three corners (tikoti parisuddha macchamamsa). The discussion shows that it is no harm for a bhikkhu to consume fish or meet provided that he has not seen, heard or suspected that the killing was done specifically for him. The second instance discussed is from the Vinaya where Devadatta, who went against the Buddha, requests the latter to impose vegetarianism on the Buddhist monastic followers. The Buddha rejects this demand and leaves it for disciples themselves to determine. The third instance discussed is the Amagandhasutta of the Suttanipata in which the Buddha defines what the real foul smell is. Subsequently, the paper discusses the issue of meeteating as a general ethical problem from a Theravada point of view. The Buddhas last meal, allegedly contained pork, is discussed as a part of this discussion. The paper shows that the Buddha has not discussed meet eating as a general problem of ethics; he has discussed it only in the context of monastic discipline. What the Buddha said with regard to his monastic followers who always depended on others for their survival and who were expected to eat merely for the sake of safeguarding their life, may not be applicable for society as a whole. But what the Buddha said by way advising his monastic followers may only be taken as providing a very broad and general approach to the issue. The paper ends by highlighting that the general Theravada attitude toward meeteating is
- 97 -

98 50

gradual reduction and complete avoidance ultimately.

*Key words

meeteating, vegetarianism, killing, food, Theravada, Vinaya.

: 2008 11 29, : 2008 12 2, : 2008 12 22

- 98 -