Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[Lioneric]

Why some monks I see can eat meat and some are not allow to eat meat.?

Some monk can smoke and some are not allow to smoke?

Some even are allow to have wife and drink acohol.

Can anyone have a good answers for all these.

Does Buddha have guide line in monkhood?

Really which one is the truth path??

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Why some monks I see can eat meat and some are not allow to eat meat.?

Some monk can smoke and some are not allow to smoke?

Some even are allow to have wife and drink acohol.

Can anyone have a good answers for all these.

Does Buddha have guide line in monkhood?

Really which one is the truth path??

I think you are into urban mythology.

[Richard W]

Why some monks I see can eat meat and some are not allow to eat meat?

Conflicting principles. Do no harm, and beggars can't be choosers. There has been a fierce controvery over this issue in recent years. A refusal to eat meat has been cited by opponents as a justification for banning members of the sect General Chamlong Srimueang belongs to from officially calling themselves monks. I don't know what the official reasons are.

Some monk can smoke and some are not allow to smoke?

This is too recent a vice for the Buddha to have given advice on the issue!

Some even are allow to have wife and drink acohol.

No, it just happens. I was shocked when my wife suggested that it was by no means unheard of for an abbot to have a mia noi. It does rather smack of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church - forbidden but practised. I've a vague recollection that one abbot was defrocked a few years ago for too much dalliance with the ladies.

I hadn't heard of alcohol being consumed by monks. There was a scandal when one wat was found to be making amphetamines.

Does Buddha have guide line in monkhood?

Really which one is the truth path?

The Buddha provided guidance, but he did not claim that his recommendations were the only path to nirvana.

However, the civil power has the authority to unfrock (or at least ban from wearing 'saffron' robes) monks who misbehave.

[meadish_sweetball]

When it comes to the question of meat, Buddhism and Thais, suddenly "THE MIDDLE WAY" becomes the ever ruling principle.

This is the middle way in this respect, as explained to me:

Every Thai person you ask agrees: "It is SO WRONG to kill an animal"... But it is perfectly fine to stuff yourself full with that dead meat, once that utterly despicable butcher, who no girl wants to marry, has cut it up into nice little sticks of muu ping aret aroi.

[sabaijai]

Are you asking these questions with reference to Thai Buddhism, ie, Theravada Buddhism as practiced in Thailand? Here monks do not have wives. They take vows of total celibacy. These vows are written down in great detail in one of the three Theravada Buddhist canons, one called the Vinaya (The Discipline).

Violating celibacy vows is considered a serious offence and in fact the guilty party is not considered a monk anymore until the transgression has been properly confessed before senior monks, etc.

Other schools of Buddhism, including some sects of Zen Buddhism in Japan, for example, also most sects of Tibetan Buddhism, allow clerics to marry.

Tobacco wasn't used in Asia in the early Buddhist era, so there have never been any prohibitions on smoking. However some interpret the Vinaya to say that smoking is a violation of the precepts against frivolous activities meant only for self-gratification. Usually the abbot will set the policy for his wat, regarding smoking.

Same thing for veg vs non- veg. In Theravada Buddhism there's no requirement to be vegetarian. Furthermore, one of the category of monastic vows in the Vinaya stipulates that a monk cannot choose one kind of food over another, that he must accept whatever food is placed in his almsbowl. To refuse food offered by a Buddhist would be to deny the accrual of merit to that person.

Many villagers in Thailand feel that offering meat dishes accrues more merit than offering veg dishes, simply because it's more expensive. However a few wats in Thailand have sent messages to the villages where they collect food saying, more or less, "If you want to offer us vegetarian food, we don't mind. It's less expensive for you, etc." Wat Pa Nanachat in Ubon province is one such place.

The Santi Asok cult to which Chamlong belongs are adamant in advising vegetarianism for its members, but they're a relatively small minority in Thailand. I once attended a lecture by a Santi Asok 'nun' on vegetarianism, and I must say it seemed to me she was distorting the Suttas and the Vinaya to make them appear to be advocating a vegetarian diet. Those of us in the audience who knew a little Pali knew that she was, for example, mistranslating certain Pali terms to give them a veggie slant. It was this sort of monkey business that led Thai Buddhism' Supreme Patriarch to declare that Santi Asok monastics could no longer be considered part of the Sangha (Buddhist fraternity of monks).

Of course laypeople are free to choose whatever diet suits them, in Theravada Buddhism.

Edited June 11, 2004 by sabaijai

[wolf5370]

Agreed sabaijai,

in fact I have a feeling that it is actually against the law for Monks to break some of these rules - a few years back the Thai press carried a story about a Thai Abbot in Oz that had been frequenting brothels. The press, if I remember correctly, were stating that when (if?) he returned to LOS he was subject to arrest!

There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. Yep, it dropped in to the alms bowl. The monk carmly consumed the diseased thumb along with the rest of the collection. While I would think this is an urban myth, it goes someway to explain that the monks ARE obliged to eat all food given alms. Often though this is taken back to the temple and shared with other monks. What is left is shared by visitors and temple staff after the monks have finished (obviously the food is in serving dishes in the middle of the table, I don't mean eating the monk's left over dregs). I often eat at my temple - we take food with us as many visitors do. After the monks have finished, we tuck in. I am a vegitarian, so I only eat what I am assured is veggie.

Thai women are forbidden by cistom from touching a monk or even directly passing something to one. I do not really know the prostitute scene etc, but I would thought most Thai women would be horrified if a monk come on to them, and would never consider the reverse. I am sure it does happen, but I would have thought rarely. Mia Nois I fear is mostly down to myth and rumour - Thai women can become very jellous, it would be good ammo to let a rumour start that 'her' enemy entertains the local Abbot!

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Agreed sabaijai,

in fact I have a feeling that it is actually against the law for Monks to break some of these rules - a few years back the Thai press carried a story about a Thai Abbot in Oz that had been frequenting brothels. The press, if I remember correctly, were stating that when (if?) he returned to LOS he was subject to arrest!

There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. Yep, it dropped in to the alms bowl. The monk carmly consumed the diseased thumb along with the rest of the collection. While I would think this is an urban myth, it goes someway to explain that the monks ARE obliged to eat all food given alms. Often though this is taken back to the temple and shared with other monks. What is left is shared by visitors and temple staff after the monks have finished (obviously the food is in serving dishes in the middle of the table, I don't mean eating the monk's left over dregs). I often eat at my temple - we take food with us as many visitors do. After the monks have finished, we tuck in. I am a vegitarian, so I only eat what I am assured is veggie.

Thai women are forbidden by cistom from touching a monk or even directly passing something to one. I do not really know the prostitute scene etc, but I would thought most Thai women would be horrified if a monk come on to them, and would never consider the reverse. I am sure it does happen, but I would have thought rarely. Mia Nois I fear is mostly down to myth and rumour - Thai women can become very jellous, it would be good ammo to let a rumour start that 'her' enemy entertains the local Abbot!

He was the so called green monk because of the color of his robes. He fled to the USA. He was sprung using an Amex card in brothels in Australia.

[p1p]

During my stint as a monk I was taught that I should not show preference for any particular type of food. I was supposed to be willing to eat whatever was placed in the alms bowl, be it animal, vegetable or, occasionally, mineral. However the lay community that supported us would ensure that the food we were given was predominantly vegetarian and palateable!

As regards smpoking, I went cold turkey although there is some debate as to wheather tobacco can be classed as one of the medecines permissable to the Sangkha.

Wife & Alcohol, No No No. However I was deeply shocked when, on a pilgrimage to Buddhist sites around India and Nepal, I met monks from Taiwan and Japan who were travelling with their families. They also ate evening meals whereas I fasted from mid day onwards. I still find these practices difficult to accept.

[sabaijai]

There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. [/code]

I've heard or read of this story a few times. When I went to the Santi Asok veggie lecture, I asked about it during the post-lecture Q&A period. The Santi Asok 'nun' was horrified at the story, and pretty much said anyone who believed that a Buddhist monk (in some versions of the story it was the Buddha himself) would have eaten human flesh is a blasphemer! I've never since mentioned this apocryphal story in the company of Thais.

[organic]

Not monks, but...

My ex-'s family from Isaan wouldn't eat beef. I've never heard of any prohibition against it in Buddhism, or against any other specific meat.

Explanations, anyone?

[ghengis]

I am a vegetarian myself. I have noticed that Thai monks are usually impressed when they meet someone who is vegetarian as they consider it to be good thing.

According to a recent survey about 25% of Thai monks smoke. So maybe they find it just too hard to change their diet and smoking habits when they become monks.

[camerata]

During my stint as a monk I was taught that I should not show preference for any particular type of food. I was supposed to be willing to eat whatever was placed in the alms bowl, be it animal, vegetable or, occasionally, mineral. However the lay community that supported us would ensure that the food we were given was predominantly vegetarian and palateable!

A friend's son (half Thai, half Western) who was born and raised in Thailand went into the monkhood for a couple of months. The local people assumed he was a farang who couldn't eat Thai food, so they made a point of giving him fried chicken most mornings. This was one of the many good memories he brought back from the temple.

Generally I'm not a big fan of veggies, but the Shingon Buddhist temples I've stayed at in Japan serve the most delicious vegetarian food I've ever tasted. And plenty of it too.

[Darknight]

I've got another view on this. I would call this discussion putting the cart in front of the horse. Unfortunatly many of these teachings are understood this way.

There is no need to stipulate what a monk can or can't do as it will be a logical evolution in his spiritual life in which he progresses.

For example there is no rule stating that you have to be a vegitarian. There is actually no need for such a rule. Buddha never specified this.

As you will progress deeper into meditation and onto enlightement your "taste" for meat will gradually dissapear after which you will move on to vegetarian and on to almost no food at all. This is a logical evolution of a monk on his spiritual path. There is no point making a rule for somebody who's not on this level yet. It will do diddely squat.

Same as celibacy. Supressing sexual desires because you are a monk or because of a vow is actually contra your evolution. If these desires are supressed they will always weigh on your mind , hidden deep in your being.

What buddha meant was that if you progress to enlightment the "need" for sex will decrease automatically. You just won't feel it anymore. When you become enlightened there's actually no point in having sex anymore. When you're enlightend you experience a hundred fold of a cosmic orgasm every minute.

What's the point of having sex then ?

Also giving up worldly posessions is not a prerequisite to becoming a buddha.

The more spiritual you get the less" money and earthly matters" will intrest you.

Hence the poorer you will become. you'll be trowing money out of doors and windows , cause it simply is not important anymore. If you have to leave your wealth at the door of the temple and you think of it everyday it will be a hindrance in your spiritual quest instead of a step forward.

"Cart before the horse"

[stroll]

That's another excellent post, Darknight.

I couldn't put my finger on what disturbed me in this thread. The idea of following imposed rules and 'giving up' desires goes against my understanding of spititual development. been thinking about this a lot. Maybe I am not ready.

Surely it is better to arrive at not wanting to do or eat certain things from within.

Actually, drug addiction is a good teacher of this. When people try to force themselves, or are forced to 'give up', the relapse rate is high, whereas if you let the thing run its course, at some point (be it 3 weeks or 20 years), one (in a nutshell) simply doesn't desire it anymore, which is the stage at which action is fruitful.

Sorry, going off topic.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with eating vegetarian or non-vegetarian, but eating a leper's finger or 'minerals' is a long way beyond where I would draw the line. This stuff doesn't serve the purpose of sustaining the body.

Quote organic:

"My ex-'s family from Isaan wouldn't eat beef. I've never heard of any prohibition against it in Buddhism, or against any other specific meat.

Explanations, anyone?"

Not an explanation, but the Chinese Buddhists I know all do not eat beef, maybe it is a Chinese thing. I wasn't able to find a specific reason (Buddhists-don't-eat-beef kind of explanation).

[Richard W]

When my wife was learning meditation at Wat Sangkhathan (Birmingham branch of the one outside Nonthaburi), she was told to give up eating beef. I have always been a bit worried that the instruction was to give up meat (เนื้อ), but that she understood it as being to give up beef (เนื้อ - same word as before!). I often have to check lists of ingredients to make sure that food does not contain beef.

[DeDanan]

My g/f who is from KK also does not eat beef. Chicken, pork and fish is no problem. When I asked her about this she said it like a offering (tam boon) to “Kwan Yin”

On the question of eating meet, I came across this answer from a monk.

Questioner: Is it not the case that the one who eats meat bears the responsibility for the killing?

Monk: Of course not. The one who eats meat a.) intends to eat, and b.) may or may not intend to eat meat. Meat is, as a matter of fact, what is being eaten. But nowhere in the mental states of our reverend gourmand is there an intention to kill.

Have a Happy…

DeDanan

[sabaijai]

Same as celibacy. Supressing sexual desires because you are a monk or because of a vow is actually contra your evolution. If these desires are supressed they will always weigh on your mind , hidden deep in your being.

The question was about the reality of the monkhood -- what are their rules, etc -- not what your ideal aproach might be. In every religion that has monastics, there are precepts, including Zen. Do these aid in practice? I don't think that question can be answered definitively, but the Tripitaka argues for their necessity, and most Buddhists agree.

As you will progress deeper into meditation and onto enlightement your "taste" for meat will gradually dissapear after which you will move on to vegetarian and on to almost no food at all. This is a logical evolution of a monk on his spiritual path.

Is this your personal experience as a monk or did you take a poll among a few thundred Buddhist monks? The vinaya says a monk eats what's been offered to him until his stomach feels one-third full. If a monk expresses a preference of one food over the other, he is locked into self, and even feeling such a preference is akusala citta (unwholesome or unskillful mind), hardly enlightened.

The idea that one's spiritual development will occur naturally coupled with meditation is an idea you won't find supported in the Theravada Buddhist canon. The teachings say that sila (moral prescriptions) must be followed along with the development of meditation, etc. Yeah it grates against a lot of people's sense of fun, and folks come up with all kinds of explanations about why it's not necessary to follow the precepts (including those for laypeople), just to suit their lifestyles. That's human nature.

If Buddhists were to agree with your take on how it should all work, they'd have to throw out the Vinaya, one third of the Tripitaka. I'm sure you think that would be for the best. Different strokes ...

Stroll, I guess you're ditching your idea of becoming a monk then, now that you're buying into laissez-faire Buddhism ....

Edited June 13, 2004 by sabaijai

[stroll]

"Stroll, I guess you're ditching your idea of becoming a monk then, now that you're buying into laissez-faire Buddhism ...."

Errr, no. But have been thinking and reading about what is involved, thank's for the links you provided, again.

My thoughts are that I do not like having rules imposed, goes against my instincts, makes me want to tear the thing down. This is not an absolute statement, but something to work with, denying I have this feeling wouldn't help, and I'd be wasting a valuable slot for novices in the temple.

I could agree to follow the rules temporarily, and process the desires and 'ego-defenses', I guess the monks know about the kinds of issues thst come up for novices. I do not accept that complying to the rules is a prerequisit for going on the path/being a novice, I see it as being part of the process.

Way of topic, just one thing about 'laissez-faire' Buddhism: I do not subscribe to letting one's desires run one's life, I am arguing concious awareness in whatever is happening within or without and the processing, 'cooking' of issues is what I prefer to imposing an ideal outcome.

[sabaijai]

Fair enought, Stroll

[ghengis]

The “five precepts” are the basic training rules observed by all practicing Buddhist lay men and women. They are as follows:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

I think No 1 means that you should be a vegetarian. Thais are not too good at No 3. Number 5 suggests Booze and Fags are to be avoided. Thais may call themselves Buddhists, but just how many shape up to the 5 precepts.

[stroll]

Actually they are not all that dissimilar to the Christian commandments.

And they are given as guidelines to laypeople. I would say this is very sensible to keep everybody out of trouble, and prepare for a more serious persuit of the path.

The question remains as to what is going to happen with surpressed urges to do the 'forbidden', psychology tells us that these will 'leak out' unconsiously, and it will be more difficult to deal with them.

Anyway, even in the Buddhist community there are discussions on how to apply the precepts in detail.

1. I take this as thou shall not kill, with the exception of mosquitos and ants I have no problem with this. Does it mean vegetarian? There have been periods in my life when I didn't want to eat meat, but to be honest, a difficult thing to do in Thailand, unless you cook yourself -odd to say the least, for a Buddhist country.

2. Translates as not stealing, or am I missing something? Also not one of my vices.

3. This could entail a number of things, such as sex with whom is ok or not, which sexual practises are acceptable. Personally, I take it as being faithful. Also not a very difficult one(most of the time).

4. As in do not tell lies insult or provoke disharmony, the Thais are very good at maintaining social harmony, sometimes at the cost of truth, though. Looking at my other posts in this forum, this is not my strength.

5. Not much to interpret here, but i disagree on cigs belonging in this cat., smoking is unhealthy, but it doesn't lead to carelessness, better off without the habit, I am not disputing that. It fits under the heading 'cravings and desires'.

Thais are not too good at this, I rcall when I had difficulties making it to the temple sober on Songkran, not because I wanted a drink, but because several times people tried to pull me into their houses to share their Lao Kao with me (7am in the village).

Sorry to ramble on, this is something I can relate to on a practical level, and I would have no problem keeping all these precepts for a few months (no 4 with difficulties, perhaps). So maybe it is time for the next step and find out how I'll get along as a novice.

On a down-to-earth note, how do you relate to these precepts, everybody?

[Lioneric]

If you'are a Buddhist,you should believed in Cause and effect(Karma),

If today we kill something chicken to eat one day we should be killed too.

It not a matter of sins but what we borrow we should pay back one day not this this life maybe in next life.

We should not killed but we eat them,is this consider kill too.?

In terms of health concern take more vege are much better for our body too.

For soul and body there are more advantage to have more vegie in our daily life.

[sabaijai]

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

The topic question is what are Buddhist monks permitted to eat. Your personal interpretation of this lay precept may be that it means you must not eat animal flesh. That's not the way the Vinaya interprets it. There is substantial commentary on this point and at no point is it suggested that Buddhist monks need be vegetarian. Even if it were their preference, the monastic precepts proscribe their expressing a preference, hence they eat the same diet as those giving them almsfood.

Here is a link to a specific reference on the part of the monastic code involving the allowable bhojana (foods) for a monk:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/...mc1/ch08-4.html

1) Cooked grains. The Vibhanga defines this as seven types of cooked grain, but there is disagreement on the identity of some of the seven. They are sali (BD translates this as rice; the Thais, wheat); vihi (BD again has rice, and the Thais agree); yava (BD has barley; the Thais, glutinous rice); godhuma (BD has wheat; the Thais, tares); kangu (both BD and the Thais identify this as millet or sorghum); varaka (BD doesn't identify this beyond saying that it is a bean; the Thais are probably right in identifying it as Job's tears); and kudrusaka (the Commentary states that this term covers all forms of grain that come from grass -- rye would be an example in the West). Whatever the precise definitions of these terms, though, we could argue from the Great Standards that any grain cooked as a staple -- including corn (maize) and oats -- would fit into this category.

2) Kummasa. The Commentary says that this is a staple confection made out of yava, but doesn't describe it in any detail aside from saying that if the kummasa is made out of any of the other grains or mung beans, it doesn't count as a staple food. References to kummasa in the Canon show that it was a very common staple that could form a rudimentary meal in and of itself and would spoil if left overnight.

3) Sattu. Any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted and pounded into meal.

4) Fish. The flesh of any animal living in the sea.

5) Meat. The flesh of any biped or quadruped, except for that which is unallowable. The following types of meat are un-allowable: the flesh of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas (panthers). Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan contemplatives eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there were offended and annoyed and attacked them).

To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkata (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkata if he doesn't ask the donor what it is (Mv.VI.23.9).

Fish or meat, even if of an allowable kind, is unallowable if raw. Thus bhikkhus may not eat steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, etc. (Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings (!)) Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).

Edited June 16, 2004 by sabaijai

[kwiz117]

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

The topic question is what are Buddhist monks permitted to eat. Your personal interpretation of this lay precept may be that it means you must not eat animal flesh. That's not the way the Vinaya interprets it. There is substantial commentary on this point and at no point is it suggested that Buddhist monks need be vegetarian. Even if it were their preference, the monastic precepts proscribe their expressing a preference, hence they eat the same diet as those giving them almsfood.

Here is a link to a specific reference on the part of the monastic code involving the allowable bhojana (foods) for a monk:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/...mc1/ch08-4.html

1) Cooked grains. The Vibhanga defines this as seven types of cooked grain, but there is disagreement on the identity of some of the seven. They are sali (BD translates this as rice; the Thais, wheat); vihi (BD again has rice, and the Thais agree); yava (BD has barley; the Thais, glutinous rice); godhuma (BD has wheat; the Thais, tares); kangu (both BD and the Thais identify this as millet or sorghum); varaka (BD doesn't identify this beyond saying that it is a bean; the Thais are probably right in identifying it as Job's tears); and kudrusaka (the Commentary states that this term covers all forms of grain that come from grass -- rye would be an example in the West). Whatever the precise definitions of these terms, though, we could argue from the Great Standards that any grain cooked as a staple -- including corn (maize) and oats -- would fit into this category.

2) Kummasa. The Commentary says that this is a staple confection made out of yava, but doesn't describe it in any detail aside from saying that if the kummasa is made out of any of the other grains or mung beans, it doesn't count as a staple food. References to kummasa in the Canon show that it was a very common staple that could form a rudimentary meal in and of itself and would spoil if left overnight.

3) Sattu. Any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted and pounded into meal.

4) Fish. The flesh of any animal living in the sea.

5) Meat. The flesh of any biped or quadruped, except for that which is unallowable. The following types of meat are un-allowable: the flesh of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas (panthers). Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan contemplatives eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there were offended and annoyed and attacked them).

To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkata (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkata if he doesn't ask the donor what it is (Mv.VI.23.9).

Fish or meat, even if of an allowable kind, is unallowable if raw. Thus bhikkhus may not eat steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, etc. (Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings (!)) Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).

Simple answer..

One of the 5 guidelines for a Buddhist persons day to day life is, 'Not to harm or be part of harming any life Intentionally. Now that is where the argument is. Is it intentional?'. This includes, Animals, Humans, and even Trees.

For example, Lord Buddha has respected the "Bo" Tree which gave him the shelter during his path towards enlightenment by meditating around the tree "Walking Meditation" for 7 days.

The monks are the teachers of Buddhist philosophy. If a teacher do not follow the teachings, then what?

[wolf5370]

My ex-'s family from Isaan wouldn't eat beef. I've never heard of any prohibition against it in Buddhism, or against any other specific meat.

My wife's mother was told, at her 'blessing' as a baby, that she should not eat beef or have her hair cut. She rarely cuts her hair - and goes the the temple when she does. She now eats beef, but did not for most of her life. It cam from a horoscopr reading by the Abbot.

Actually they are not all that dissimilar to the Christian commandments.

Except that Commandments are just that, commands. Precepts are guidelines, there are no " Thou shalt not..."'s; we simply state that we undertake to follow these guidelines. I have seen the word "sin" above, this is not a Buddhist word. It comes from the old middle-eastern nomadic religion that became Juadism, Christianity and Islam (and hence, the same theory of H3ll, repentance and sin).

If you'are a Buddhist,you should believed in Cause and effect(Karma),

If today we kill something chicken to eat one day we should be killed too.

Are you sure you are not confusing "Cause and effect" with "What comes around, goes around"?

"Cause and effect" simply shows us that every action has a reaction, but unlike Newton's third law, it's not allways 'equal and opposite'. We must take responsability for our actions AND their subsequent effects.

An example in this regard may be the eating of the Dodo bird by the early mariners and pirates. These were clumsy easy to catch bird. The sailors hunted them for food, stocks and fun. Now there are none left. The sailors had to find other sources of food because of their greed. The same could be said for American buffalo for the early pioneers of America.

PS: It's Asalha Puja and Khai Phansa this weekend I believe.

[Ajarn]

Agreed sabaijai,

in fact I have a feeling that it is actually against the law for Monks to break some of these rules - a few years back the Thai press carried a story about a Thai Abbot in Oz that had been frequenting brothels. The press, if I remember correctly, were stating that when (if?) he returned to LOS he was subject to arrest!

There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. Yep, it dropped in to the alms bowl. The monk carmly consumed the diseased thumb along with the rest of the collection. While I would think this is an urban myth, it goes someway to explain that the monks ARE obliged to eat all food given alms. Often though this is taken back to the temple and shared with other monks. What is left is shared by visitors and temple staff after the monks have finished (obviously the food is in serving dishes in the middle of the table, I don't mean eating the monk's left over dregs). I often eat at my temple - we take food with us as many visitors do. After the monks have finished, we tuck in. I am a vegitarian, so I only eat what I am assured is veggie.

Thai women are forbidden by cistom from touching a monk or even directly passing something to one. I do not really know the prostitute scene etc, but I would thought most Thai women would be horrified if a monk come on to them, and would never consider the reverse. I am sure it does happen, but I would have thought rarely. Mia Nois I fear is mostly down to myth and rumour - Thai women can become very jellous, it would be good ammo to let a rumour start that 'her' enemy entertains the local Abbot!

He was the so called green monk because of the color of his robes. He fled to the USA. He was sprung using an Amex card in brothels in Australia.

Sounds like you're referring to that rascal, Phra Yantra. Last I heard, he was on trial in the U.S. for causing a traffic accident (he was driving) where people were killed, and another monk was crippled

[OxfordWill]

Questioner: Is it not the case that the one who eats meat bears the responsibility for the killing?

Monk: Of course not. The one who eats meat a.) intends to eat, and b.) may or may not intend to eat meat. Meat is, as a matter of fact, what is being eaten. But nowhere in the mental states of our reverend gourmand is there an intention to kill.

Have a Happy…

DeDanan

Oh that's hard. I would have a tricky time taking that monk seriously.

With respect to the monk, that sort of semantic reply is a bit sickening.

[OxfordWill]

1. I take this as thou shall not kill, with the exception of mosquitos and ants I have no problem with this. Does it mean vegetarian? There have been periods in my life when I didn't want to eat meat, but to be honest, a difficult thing to do in Thailand, unless you cook yourself -odd to say the least, for a Buddhist country.

Oh come now, don't be silly - it's easy to be 'jae' in Thailand! In Bangkok nothing could be simpler than eating a vegetarian diet, and the further you travel from the city, the more likely you are to have difficulty finding good meat than good vegetarian options.

[stroll]

Not my experience.

I am referring to strict vegetarian, i.e. no nam pla and the like, and fishing out the bits of pork belly or dried shrimps is not acceptable, either. It really hit home when a vegetarian Indian friend came to visit.

I found it easier in the north, where it is up to you whether you dip your steamed or raw veges into sauces or not, and meat is presented on a different plate.

As I said, I don't have a problem either way, Just thought it odd that most eateries don't even know what you mean when you order without meat. Compare this to India.

[OxfordWill]

Well yes, but I have never had a problem communicating my desire that no fish sauce or similar be used - I'm pretty good at tasting something amiss, too.

I'm a vegetarian from birth and was very pleased with the acceptance (amidst some curiosity among less educated thais) from Thai people, and the overall willingness to cater to my 'peculiarities'.