If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned. Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him. Even worse, someone whose profession involves the daily killing of animals as is the case in a slaughterhouse, has to bear the mental consequences of this daily ritual as well as its kammic consequences. Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the dead animal in his bowl. The morality of this doesn't make sense. I would think the only morally harmless situation would be for a monk to only eat an animal or plant that had already died naturally, either by scavenging for it or waiting for another to do so on his behalf. Question: Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer this to him?

I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

According to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " by Bhikkhu Ariyesako: > The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus was > that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily > dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees > of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too > isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats > the food that they share with him. Several important rules are > concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training > rules. On this page , āraññika dhutaṅga refers to: > "the one who has the habit to dwell in a country side lodging remote > from villages", that is to say the one who lives remote from inhabited > areas. And the ukkaṭṭha āraññika, the noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is defined as: > The bhikkhu who is a noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is > resolved to dwell and dwell into a forest monastery (remote from > inhabited areas) a all the time, during the three seasons of the year > that are summer (from March to June), the monsoon (approximately from > July to October) and winter (approximately from November to February). The "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " also states: > In the Buddha's time some ladies were ambushed and raped on their way > to give food to bhikkhus living in a dangerous jungle area. Their > family criticized the bhikkhus for not warning them of the hazards. If > lay people intend to give food to a bhikkhu(s) in such a danger zone > then they must announce that to the bhikkhu(s) beforehand so that the > bhikkhu(s) has a chance to warn them or reduce the threat. > > The rule can be summarized: "Eating an unannounced gift of staple or > non-staple food, after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode > when one is not ill is [an offence of Acknowledgement.]" > (Paatidesaniya 4; BMC p.488) So, how does an ukkaṭṭha āraññika get his food? Only from lay people who dare enter the potentially dangerous forest area to give them food or can they eat food that they can find in the forest like fruits? If they eat fruits etc. in the forest, wouldn't that be a violation of another rule requiring the monk to get his food from alms? Here, I assume that an ukkaṭṭha āraññika does not go to inhabited areas for alms, by the very definition of "ukkaṭṭha āraññika".