<p>In a word, yes.  Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis are forbidden from accepting raw meat or live animals.  They are also forbidden from consuming fish or flesh that they suspect, heard or seen  has been slaughtered for their personal consumption.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-13T04:58:01.847Z
How could you not suspect that it had been slaughtered for their personal consumption? Accidentally died?
user3169
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-12T21:49:27.740Z
2016-05-12T21:49:27.740Z
Rks1157
<p>In <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf">this commentary on the Vinaya</a>, on page 308, it says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
  by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
  raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
  steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
  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)</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-12T19:58:39.323Z
(copying from [this answer](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10703/254))
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-13T05:00:44.063Z
Could you expand on "when one is possessed by non-human beings"?
user3169
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-13T08:27:00.867Z
@user3169 That question was asked in this topic: [What is meant by “possessed by spirits” in Buddhism?](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/10706/254) I wonder whether, perhaps, in modern times, other people (i.e. not the one possessed) sometimes interpret the state of being possessed as a mental illness.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-13T23:58:44.000Z
Or pretty much any non-conforming mental state, I suppose. But I wonder, in "suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus", how could one not "suspect" what happened? Was it deemed killed for others first? Seems like the end result is the same for the animal.
user3169
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-12T19:58:31.590Z
2016-05-12T19:58:31.590Z
ChrisW
<p>According to <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#fn-89" rel="nofollow">THIS</a>, <em>"The bhikkhu should also not eat raw or undercooked meat..."</em></p>

<p>Should a bhikkhu, then, not eat sashimi (raw fish, such as it used frequently in sushi)?</p>

<meat><rules>
Should a bikkhu avoid eating sashimi?
# Should a bikkhu avoid eating sashimi?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-12)

According to [THIS](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#fn-89), *"The bhikkhu should also not eat raw or undercooked meat..."*

Should a bhikkhu, then, not eat sashimi (raw fish, such as it used frequently in sushi)?

**Tags:** meat, rules


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-12. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

In [this commentary on the Vinaya](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf), on page 308, it says,

> Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
> by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
> raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
> steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
> 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)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: (copying from [this answer](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10703/254))  
> **username_2**: Could you expand on "when one is possessed by non-human beings"?  
> **username_3**: @username_2 That question was asked in this topic: [What is meant by “possessed by spirits” in Buddhism?](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/10706/254) I wonder whether, perhaps, in modern times, other people (i.e. not the one possessed) sometimes interpret the state of being possessed as a mental illness.  
> **username_2**: Or pretty much any non-conforming mental state, I suppose. But I wonder, in "suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus", how could one not "suspect" what happened? Was it deemed killed for others first? Seems like the end result is the same for the animal.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-05-12. Score: 1

In a word, yes. Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis are forbidden from accepting raw meat or live animals. They are also forbidden from consuming fish or flesh that they suspect, heard or seen has been slaughtered for their personal consumption.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: How could you not suspect that it had been slaughtered for their personal consumption? Accidentally died?  

---

