mikenz66 wrote: clw_uk wrote:
In the sense of it involves killing a human, then yes. However this is no different to the killing of cows for meat. Therefore if a monk visited Hannibal lectres house, and he provides a meal of liver and beans, with some wine
the monk would have to eat it, as long as he hadn't seen it or suspected the guy was killed for him to eat, yet not drink the wine
This would be an un-allowable food so would be refused.
The following types of meat are unallowable: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. 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 criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html
Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of the vinaya could confirm, but my impression is that bhikkus are not required
to eat everything
that is offered (which would clearly be impossible
in most cases). They are free to choose from what is offered. That's what I've always observed of a variety of Bhikkhus.
Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.
I was reading something yesterday that gave me the impression that if a monk sees meat in his bowl and does not recognize what kind it is, he MUST ask what kind it is so he can discern if he can accept it or not. If he does not, he commits an offense.
"To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkaṭa (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkaṭa if he doesn't ask the donor what it is before eating it (Mv.VI.23.9)
. The Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, on reflection, one recognizes what kind of meat it is, one needn't ask the donor about the identity of the meat. If one doesn't recognize it, one must
ask. If one mistakenly identifies an unallowable sort of meat as allowable and then goes ahead and consumes it under that mistaken assumption, there is no offense." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html
It seems obvious that a bhikkhu is certainly not required to eat anything offered. If that were the case, then there would be no dukkaṭa for not asking about meat of an uncertain origin. A bhikkhu would not be allowed to eat at Hannibal lectres house! Even if it was not "seen, heard or suspected" the guy was killed for him to eat. With regards to unallowable types of meat, it appears that "seen, heard or suspected" becomes irrelevant. That is how I read it anyway.
Alex123 wrote:Hello seeker242,
Thank you for your post. The problem is that one of the highest protein food still has too much others (carbs/fats). For example, I've calculated that I can take about 1500calories from cashews per meal to eat ~48g of protein. I am drinking it right now. That is my breakfast.
As for shakes. Some cheap whey (2lb and 5lb) jars are cheaper for protein than most food, (except for red kidney beans). As much as I like red kidney beans, it would be tough to eat them every day.
Thank you for saying thank you!