DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**eCw56dzY** · 11-05-2011, 06:34 PM

And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.

hi Stuka

as i previously mentioned, the issue of eating meat by monks came down to the fact that they were not engaged in making a choice

this, it seems, was also the Buddha's reasoning affirming why a monk eating allowable meat was blameless

MN 55 reports:

however, obviously, it seems, the Buddha did not regard killing animals for food to be meritorious kamma

MN 55 continues:

therefore, in summary, it seems allowable meat is not forbidden for monks and nuns because they are not engaged in decision making in respect to the food they eat

where as the layperson is engaged in decision making in respect to the food they purchase and eat

regards

element

11-05-2011, 06:34 PM	#36
eCw56dzY Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 400 Senior Member	And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so. hi Stuka as i previously mentioned, the issue of eating meat by monks came down to the fact that they were not engaged in making a choice this, it seems, was also the Buddha's reasoning affirming why a monk eating allowable meat was blameless MN 55 reports: however, obviously, it seems, the Buddha did not regard killing animals for food to be meritorious kamma MN 55 continues: therefore, in summary, it seems allowable meat is not forbidden for monks and nuns because they are not engaged in decision making in respect to the food they eat where as the layperson is engaged in decision making in respect to the food they purchase and eat regards element
	Quote