Hi AG,

I will give u my idea on this but i'm also interested in knowing others points of view

as well..

Before getting into exact answer, I think the following general rule of dhamma would help.

  If some action causes trouble for you and/or others then that should not be done.

  If it does not causes trouble for both you and others then that can be done.

As for ur exact question..

There are rules regarding that in dhamma. But merely looking at those rules would not completely answer your question. We should look more deeply into how those rules were brought up and what limitations do they have and what exact purpose do they serve.

I would list the rules, as far as i know.

* For lay people there is no rule regarding eating meat.

* In the rules for ordained monks, who have highest virtue of all, there are restrictions like  this,

      1. if it is seen that the animals were killed specifically to provide meat for monks,

          that meat cannot be accepted.

      2. if it is heard  that the animals were killed specifically to provide meat for monks,

          that meat cannot be accepted.

      3. If there is any kind  of doubt that the animals were killed specifically to provide

          meat for monks,  that meat cannot be accepted.

      And there are 10 types of meat mentioned as not accepted. That include meat of

      human, dog, lion, tiger, snake, etc.

     And there are some other related rules as cannot accept raw meat.

So according to rules in dhamma, even for ordained monks, eating meat is ok unless it

violate the above rules.

And there are evidence that the monks in Lord Buddha's  time ate meat. And very devoted monks like achan chah, lived in recent past and followed the path to the very end, have eaten meat.

As it was mentioned earlier, to completely understand these rules, you should look more deeply into how those rules were brought up and what limitations do they have and what exact purpose do they serve.

For that we have to come out of our limited frames of mind and investigate really what Dhamma is and open our minds to see what samsara is like. If someone has courage and wisdom to do that, answers for many questions become obvious to him.

BR,

AS

------------------------

Hi AG,

I agree with AS. But I think, although it would not harm your "pancha seela" when you eat meat, it is better if you can refrain from them. Because, if we all refrain from meat, innocent animals' lives would be saved.

But, again if you start to think that you are living up to a some sort of "seela" by not eating meat, you've been caught in "seelabbatha paramasa" -ie viewing non-seela concepts as seela. 

Regards,

GS

-----------------------

Dear AG,

Thank you for bringing up a question as this. The two excellent answers provided give all the pertinent dhamma details for one to decide whether to eat meat or not - I think the Buddha left the question without a specific answer (and for one to decide) with a reason:

I remember reading a Jataka story (the name of which I cannot remember) where the Bodhisattva was a Ruksha-Deva and where he relates the tragedy that befell a particular family. This was in the Jatakattakatha - not in the 547 jataka stories, as I remember

             Once, this family got lost in a forest and they could not find anything to live on. So they chose bird-eggs. They managed to live like this for sometime before they found the way to their village again. However, they had this urge to go back into the forest and bring back those eggs for supper as they were so delicious. This ultimately became a habit. So  a great tragedy befell those people (i'm sorry, I do not remember the specifics).

             The Ruksha-Deva goes on to elaborate that the tragedy befell these people only later, as they fed on the bird-eggs without any need (without hunger) - based only upon greed (you see, in the village, there are other options as well). Nothing bad happened to them while they were in the forest because then they fed on them because of hunger.

             So I guess that Buddhist Folk-lore has left a place to recognize the laws of nature - the struggle to survive is much more at a lower level (on the Kamma basis) than the complex greed patterns of humans. There, the dominant forces are hunger, thirst and shelter.

             I'm not sure if I'm totally correct on this, but if you look at Buddhism as a sort of interpretation of the actual nature of nature (world, universe, it's workings, etc) and not vice versa, I think the answer would be quite clear : there is little repercussions in nature (kamma for us) in eating meat for the NEED for survival than in eating meat for the actual WANT of eating meat. So in Thailand or Korea, you might actually die in some provinces if you do not eat frog or snake meat...!

             Also, you  can look at it this way: we all know that intention is the base of Kamma - when you are about to die of hunger, and say, you really want to have something to eat - what you'd do is look for the most edible thing around and you find a frog - OK. So what thought is more dominant in mind at this instant? Hatred/Greed/Ignorance that are con-commitant thoughts (chaitasikas) in the act of killing OR just plain hunger? I think that the state of mind governs the law of kamma and it should explain the answer - the laws of Kamma, as we 'know' them, are the ones relating to the human plane of existence - but on the animal plane, which SOME of us can come much closer to when we feel the basic needs, are not entirely comprehensible to us. Remember, the Law of Kamma is one of the 5 things that are only completely understood by a Buddha only - or only in the Buddha's Domain (Buddha-Gochara).

             Therefore, I think the Buddha left for us to decide the answer based on the occasion - of course, I guess you can say that knowledge in Dhamma is absolutely necessary to understand that introspectively (the details provided by Sene and Samare Aiya are more than enough for that) : are we eating it for the NEED of it or for the WANT of it and more specifically, does that 'moment' of existence warrant(justify) the eating of meat (according to your knowledge of Dhamma)?

(Kind of like Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and wants)


Sorry for the too long reply...

Thanks and regards,
IW

----------------------------------

Dear AG,

Although AS, GR ( Hi GS how are doing?) and IW have gave 1st class explanations, I thought that providing some facts
supporting what they have presented would do.

For AS's and GS ayya's,
Well once some HRishis (Amagganda HRishis) visited Buddha and questioned whether Buddha is consuming meat, doubting if he is ,
 he is not a Buddha at all. (The very word 'Amagganda' means the meat of living beings on land and water)
So buddha showed them a different direction asking them not to consider Amagganda as meat but as all 'Lamaka Akusala Dharma'.
Then he gave the answer 'a buddha is not consuming Lamaka akusala dharma ie; amagganda .
In Dhamma padha there's one story of a piglet ( I assume you know).
In there you can see how Shakra disguised as a dead fish to check the seela of a crane.
Because the crane strictly followed eating only dead fish.
So we get the massage that eating meat has nothing to do with seela.
But 'Consuming meat AFTER KILLING' definitely has.

For IW's,

If you take the story of prince Bodhiraja, ( I assume you remember)
He together with his wife had no chance of having children , because they ate the eggs and then hatch-lings JUST FOR survival on a bhawa
long ago.
So whether you do something for your survival or for greed , kharma does its part.
"So what thought is more dominant in mind at this instant? Hatred/Greed/Ignorance..." . I think there's also Maithree to spare a living being
 ,not devouring it , not thinking of own-life which is very hard to do but possible.
Again as Isuru says it's the intention that matters.
We know suicide is sin. But sacrificing own-self as  food to any other living being dying of starvation ( Dhahamsonda , Sasa, Jathaka)
 is at the other end.

Again I think there's connection in our topic to the Duthanga. ( I cannot remember exactly whether Duthanga were proposed by bikku Devadattha )
(One of it says that Bikshu should strictly refrain from eating meat )
Even Duthanga,,Buddha said ones who like  MAY follow them.
( In above I'm not sure whether same Duthanga were followed by bikku Maha Kashyapa)

So......yes , Buddha left us decide the answer based on the occasion.
We may do something for mere survival or may do something with mere greed.
For both kharma has its own share.
(See what happened to Bodhiraja ).
Well ........sansara is very frightening..........

BR/GP