user4813: Can I assume that Theravada monks are to eat any kinds of food given to them during alms round?  
What if they are given food with seafood or any meat? Is it considered breaking the 1st precept? Cos in order to have the seafood, somebody has to do the dirty job of catching them then make them dishes, same applies to meat.

user13973: In Theravada tradition, the Buddhist monk or nun must eat only what is offered through alms, not what he or she desires to eat. Therefore if meat is offered, so long as the animal was not killed specifically to feed the monk/nun, and the monk/nun did not witness in some way the killing of the animal, then they are not only allowed, but encouraged to consume the flesh in order to show compassion for the person(s) providing them the meal and express gratitude for their generosity. 
This instruction was given by Buddha specifically to the monastic community, not to lay people. Given that historically, the lay people very often lived extremely humble lives and had to make do with whatever they had, meat eating is not specifically proscribed for lay people. This is, in fact, one reason why a monk eating meat provided by a lay person is considered an act of compassion, as it is also a way for the lay person to make good karma.  In other words, if the lay person must through necessity kill and eat an animal to survive, this is still good karma through the act of sharing what little they have with the monk who is required by Buddha to live off the generosity of the lay person.
Buying animal products at the market is in effect a scavenging act, not a hunting or butchering act, as the animals would have been slaughtered regardless of any intention on the part of the lay person. When one considers that in agriculture, many creatures' lives are taken (earthworms, field mice, insects, etc.) in order for crops to grow, flourish, and be harvested, the idea that vegetarianism invariably circumvents violence toward animals, or that not buying meat prevents the taking of life, rings hollow. Thus, purchasing the meat of an animal that has been killed with no intention on one's own part to kill the animal is no worse than purchasing crops that caused the death of thousands of small creatures.
This is not specifically to encourage meat eating, mind you. It is simply to demonstrate that the lay person need not have spiritual concerns regarding the purchasing and consumption of meat. What is important is that right actions be in accordance with right intentions.

user471: This article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero discusses this topic. But the comments are not from him.

Majjhima Nikaya 55:
  After paying homage, he said: “Venerable sir, I have heard this: ‘They
  slaughter living beings for the monk Gotama (i.e. the Buddha); the
  monk Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared for him from animals killed
  for his sake’….”; and asked if this was true. The Buddha denied this,
  adding “Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat
  should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the
  living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say
  that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is
  not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”

This means that meat (already dead) that was purchased from the supermarket does not break the first precept. But if you see, select the animal to be killed or if somebody purposely killed a particular animal for you, then it breaks the first precept.
This is discussed in this question.

user2265: There is a bit of interpretation going on with this.
Buying meat at the supermarket does count as commanding someone to kill because the force of one's money compels the wheel that is the meat industry.
If the meat was purchased, killed, or gotten specifically due to one's preference... it does break the heart of that precept.
Even if  in one's almsrounds, the favorite house one goes to knows that one really likes that spicy meat (hence the owner went to supermarket and purchased that type). Hence it is important for such monks to practice nonequanimity or even indicate preference for that which is less pleasant but beneficial--a Theravadin exercise.
It seems this view broadens things too much. But there are still many instances where "when it is not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)….":

Being invited somewhere (wedding, dinner, etc.) and the items are pre-picked without one's meat-eating influence
Getting specific food at almsround that one did not influence the choice of towards meat-eating (ok to influence towards vegetarianism, however)
etc.


4813: <p>Can I assume that Theravada monks are to eat any kinds of food given to them during alms round?  </p>

<p>What if they are given food with seafood or any meat? Is it considered breaking the 1st precept? Cos in order to have the seafood, somebody has to do the dirty job of catching them then make them dishes, same applies to meat.</p>
 13973: <p>In Theravada tradition, the Buddhist monk or nun must eat only what is offered through alms, not what he or she desires to eat. Therefore if meat is offered, so long as the animal was not killed specifically to feed the monk/nun, and the monk/nun did not witness in some way the killing of the animal, then they are not only allowed, but encouraged to consume the flesh in order to show compassion for the person(s) providing them the meal and express gratitude for their generosity. </p>

<p>This instruction was given by Buddha specifically to the monastic community, not to lay people. Given that historically, the lay people very often lived extremely humble lives and had to make do with whatever they had, meat eating is not specifically proscribed for lay people. This is, in fact, one reason why a monk eating meat provided by a lay person is considered an act of compassion, as it is also a way for the lay person to make good karma.  In other words, if the lay person must through necessity kill and eat an animal to survive, this is still good karma through the act of sharing what little they have with the monk who is required by Buddha to live off the generosity of the lay person.</p>

<p>Buying animal products at the market is in effect a scavenging act, not a hunting or butchering act, as the animals would have been slaughtered regardless of any intention on the part of the lay person. When one considers that in agriculture, many creatures' lives are taken (earthworms, field mice, insects, etc.) in order for crops to grow, flourish, and be harvested, the idea that vegetarianism invariably circumvents violence toward animals, or that not buying meat prevents the taking of life, rings hollow. Thus, purchasing the meat of an animal that has been killed with no intention on one's own part to kill the animal is no worse than purchasing crops that caused the death of thousands of small creatures.</p>

<p>This is not specifically to encourage meat eating, mind you. It is simply to demonstrate that the lay person need not have spiritual concerns regarding the purchasing and consumption of meat. What is important is that right actions be in accordance with right intentions.</p>
 471: <p><a href="http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/07/the-buddha%E2%80%99s-real-views-on-meat-eating/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero discusses this topic. But the comments are not from him.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Majjhima Nikaya 55:
  After paying homage, he said: “Venerable sir, I have heard this: ‘They
  slaughter living beings for the monk Gotama (i.e. the Buddha); the
  monk Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared for him from animals killed
  for his sake’….”; and asked if this was true. The Buddha denied this,
  adding “Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat
  should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the
  living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say
  that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is
  not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This means that meat (already dead) that was purchased from the supermarket does not break the first precept. But if you see, select the animal to be killed or if somebody purposely killed a particular animal for you, then it breaks the first precept.</p>

<p>This is discussed in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5948/471">this question</a>.</p>
 2265: <p>There is a bit of interpretation going on with this.</p>

<p>Buying meat at the supermarket <strong>does count</strong> as commanding someone to kill because the force of one's money compels the wheel that is the meat industry.</p>

<p>If the meat was purchased, killed, or gotten specifically due to one's preference... it does break the heart of that precept.</p>

<p>Even if  in one's almsrounds, the favorite house one goes to <em>knows</em> that one really likes that spicy meat (hence the owner went to supermarket and purchased that type). Hence it is important for such monks to practice nonequanimity or even indicate preference for that which is less pleasant but beneficial--a Theravadin exercise.</p>

<p>It seems this view broadens things too much. But there are still many instances where "when it is not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)….":</p>

<ul>
<li>Being invited somewhere (wedding, dinner, etc.) and the items are pre-picked without one's meat-eating influence</li>
<li>Getting specific food at almsround that one did not influence the choice of towards meat-eating (ok to influence towards vegetarianism, however)</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>
