PDA

View Full Version : vegetarianism



mikehk2007
18 March 2006, 08:38 PM
i am a hindu and my devotion is particularly for Sri Ram. inspite of that i am not a vegetarian , even though i don't eat beef or pork, not because of hindu dharma prohibits it but because of our family traditionally don't use them and i follow them. so am i a real hindu? if i ask my conscience i would accept myself as an erring hindu.

hindu dharma is not a religion of strict codes of dos and don't like like western schools of religons profess. what hindu dharma says as i know is you are more free what you choose do do, but to keep in mind about the karmic rewards for your actions. hindu dharma dosen't offer an explicit escape route from your actions as christianity offes even for people like hitle can wipe out his sins if he had surrendered to jesus before his death through a priest. there are no such short cuts are given in hindu dharma.

so hindus majority of them give yeild to their sensual demands and food is also one of htem. god has given us the means and knowledge to break way from the natural food chain system and keep away from killing another life just to satisfiy your taste bud. there are thousands of vegetarian sourcesw to supply the same protein which you get from killing another life. you show love and affection and nurturing to another living soul solely for the purpose of killing it one day. for what purpose to satisfy one's taste bud and i am not an exception.
so saying that hindus are bound to be vegetarian is wrong. again hindu brahmins, who are supposed to perform purely spiritual oriented duties they have to be more in control of their senses and exercise harder perseverance. with eating meat , hindus are taught and believe that you can not control your senses and have that level of perseverance expected to discharge purely spiritual duties. but modern brahmin families don't stick only to spiritual profession and they ahve also started yielding to the demands of their taste buds.

thank you for allowing me to start a thread on this topic.

nsrajan

satay
19 March 2006, 05:48 AM
namaste,
Thank you for starting this thread. Vegetarianism is a great topic. I myself have struggled with it. Especially it seems that it is very very difficult to stay vegetarian if you live in the western countries and are a practicing hindu. Glad to say that I have become pure vegetarian again for the last 2 and a half years. When it comes down to it it's not that hard really even in the western countries. Now, if my friend Damodar (from hindunet) were to read this we would get into this argument again about how meat eating is necessary for bharat's raksha!

satay

Namo Narayana
19 March 2006, 03:16 PM
Dear Satay,

I am a vegetarian all my life so far and in America too I haven't found any problem being a vegetarian.

Sudarshan
19 March 2006, 03:28 PM
If you are Hindu, follow vegetariansim or non vegetariansim as taught by your guru. Some of the vedanta traditions, especially the Vaishnava are very strict in matter of external disciplines, and that includes food. People following Yogic practices also are rather orthodox in the matter of food.

Vegetarianism itself is not a standard one, Hindus fall into many classes of vegetarisnism. Some of us here dont take even many vegetables like onions, garlic etc. Some of them dont take these on important festivals. Some of the Hindus take all vegetarian food. Some Hindus allow the possibility of eggs as vegetarian. Some Hindus take fish, but yet refer to themselves as vegetarians. So the definition is rather relative....

The best suggestion is to ask your guru. I dont think non veg food is recommended by Hinduism, except in special circumstances. It is not prohibited either...

Lakshmi USA
19 March 2006, 05:34 PM
biologically our intestine is not built to digest a carnivore meal. vaishnavas dont take onion and garlic because they are used as hypnotic and like urea can dampen your thinking.

sarabhanga
19 March 2006, 06:39 PM
Namaste,

Vegetarianism is NOT essential to Hinduism, although it IS essential to Yoga.

The traditional practice of Hinduism begins with “Sacrifice”.
The first lesson of Yoga, however, is “Harmlessness”.

Arjuna
20 March 2006, 03:33 AM
Namaste,

Vegetarianism is NOT essential to Hinduism, although it IS essential to Yoga.

The traditional practice of Hinduism begins with “Sacrifice”.
The first lesson of Yoga, however, is “Harmlessness”.


Exactly right. Vegetarianism was neither present in Vedas, nor is was priscribed in Smriti. In fact certain Vedic rituals demand consumption of meat and alcohol, as well as ritual copulation. Some Hindu mystical traditions, such as Kaula-tantrism and Shaktism are stricltly against vegetarianism.

And yes, it is needed in Yoga practice (meaning mostly hatha-yoga and Patanjala-ashtanga), as it is prescribed in hatha-yoga texts.

Arjunananda

Sudarshan
20 March 2006, 03:54 AM
Exactly right. Vegetarianism was neither present in Vedas, nor is was priscribed in Smriti. In fact certain Vedic rituals demand consumption of meat and alcohol, as well as ritual copulation. Some Hindu mystical traditions, such as Kaula-tantrism and Shaktism are stricltly against vegetarianism.


Vegetarianism has been advocated repeatedly in Mahabaratha and even in Bhagavata, though there are no verses that say "eat meat and rot in hell". Every tradition should not be clubbed with Hinduism, to prove that Hinduism promotes everything.

Moksha is a fundamental goal of Hinduism, Yoga is the fundamental process involved in Moksha, and Vegetarianism is an essential aspect of Yoga, so how can anyone distance Hinduism from vegetarianism? That amounts to saying that Hinduism is not concerned with moksha.

There cannot be any moksha without Yoga ( whether it be Karma, Jnana or Bhakti). There cannot be any Hinduism without Yoga either. Any instances of the great devotees of the Lord eating meat? Take for eg, Hanuman, Dhruva, Prahlada, Narada, Vyasa etc - it is not a sattvik activity and must be avoided by all people seeking the final goal of human life.

mikehk2007
20 March 2006, 05:44 AM
the original question was why hindus don't eat meat. i pointed out that is only a myth. arjun even after getting gnana upadeesh and had the dharshan of lord krishna in His Virada Swarup didn't attain moksha and he took one more birth as a tribal in a jungle as Kannappa and spent his life indevotion Lord Shiva. by his birth and jobas a hunter, he ate meat and did his oblations with meat to Lord Shiva, even though shaivites are strict vegetarians. when lord shiva's eve got injured and blood came out from the murthy, Kannappan dug out his own eyes and gave it to Lord shiva , ignorantly thinking that his eye will fix Lords pain.

why i am saying in kali yug bhakti is most important than the norms and one's bhakthi on Lord it self will guide one to his true path. in vedic age when cultivation was not fully devoloped and many clans in bharat Bhumi were still leading nomadic way of life, they ate meat and it was acceptable at that time.

hindu sanatana dharma and baghwat gita speak about two types of dharma. Shrutis and smirtis
Shrutis are the ones never changeable by time .
Whereas smirtis are are subject to change as per the changing time as yug dharma.
what was told in Munu Smirti about Varnashram Dharma is not suitable in Kali Yug when dharma's are exploited in adharmic purposes.

but whether dharma or not to me inflicting pain and dath and pain to another life for the selfish purpose of human life is not right when God has provided us wisdom and means to live without resorting to such actions.

satay
20 March 2006, 09:51 AM
I suppose that meat eating is "allowed" as a last resort in dharma but we should be aware of the karmic ripples it produces that could last for many births. This is the thinking in dharma traditions especially in Sanatana dharma but the adharmic religions preach that since god told them to 'rule the animals' that they are free to slaughter them as they please even to satisfy their taste buds.

satay

mikehk2007
20 March 2006, 11:55 PM
i agree with you satay. i don't believe such **** of some religons whic claim that God created Human beings to be the superior to all the other form of anumals and gave the licenct to butcher and eatand make billions of dollars. they believe that god is the sole property of human beings only the fact is human beings need animals to satisfy their own luxury and taste and god has no part in it.

mikehk2007
21 March 2006, 07:15 AM
i found in the hindunet forums many hindus and non hindus invariably criticise the hindus hindus belief on non vegtarianism and argued on their side with many quotes from hindu peranas and vedas and manu smirutis as a reply to those one hindu sister padman has given an extensive research on this subject which i am quoting hee for the benfit of hindus who have some doubts about beinbg vegetarian

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.
Rig Veda Samhita 10.87.16

Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers!
Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11

O vegetable, be succulent, wholesome, strengthening; and thus, body, be fully grown.
Rig Veda

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices.
Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5

You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever.
Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32

The ignoble ones who eat flesh, death's agents bind them fast and push them quick into the fiery jaws of hell (Naraka, lower consciousness).
Tirumantiram

In waves of ahimsa, all living beings cease their enmity in the presence of such a person.
Yoga Sutras 2.35

Ahimsa is not causing pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body.
Sandilya Upanishad

Having well considered the origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let one entirely abstain from eating flesh.
Manu Samhita

The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it—all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury.
Mahabharata 18.115.8

How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?
Tirukural Verse 251

Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless. Nor can compassion be found in the hearts of those who eat meat.
Tirukural Verse 252

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh.
Tirukural Verse 253

If you ask, "What is kindness and what is unkind?" it is not killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous.
Tirukural Verse 254

Life is perpetuated by not eating meat. The clenched jaws of hell hold those who do.
Tirukural Verse 255

If the world did not purchase and consume meat, there would be none to slaughter and offer meat for sale.
Tirukural Verse 256

When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he must abstain from eating it.
Tirukural Verse 257

Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature.
Tirukural Verse 259

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.
Tirukural Verse 260

My opinion is well known. I do not regard flesh food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species."
Mahatma Gandhi 1869 -1948
________________

Padma


--------------------
What is it that by knowing which the unheard becomes heard, the unknown becomes known and the understood, understood? Have you studied that, which when known makes everything else also known

Sudarshan
21 March 2006, 01:26 PM
Verses quoted in isolation do not always make sense. One should also quote the context: Who uttered the verse, and to whom?

In Mahabaratha, meat eating has been discouraged, but never prohibited.

Yoga and himsa are incompatible. Moksha and himsa are incompatible. The first stage in getting spiritual is giving up meat, there is no pointing in decieiving yourself.

mikehk2007
22 March 2006, 03:37 AM
Verses quoted in isolation do not always make sense. One should also quote the context: Who uttered the verse, and to whom?

In Mahabaratha, meat eating has been discouraged, but never prohibited.

Yoga and himsa are incompatible. Moksha and himsa are incompatible. The first stage in getting spiritual is giving up meat, there is no pointing in decieiving yourself.

the quotes from veda or mahabharat don't say explicitly to keep away meat. they only say what is effect of eating meat and why it is no good
in mahabharat even bhishma says to give oblations with meat to the ancestors to fulfill their wishes. mahabahrat is all about practical world and the man kind is always being torn between right and the self interests. mahabaharat is ever living example of how always self interest conflicts with the spiritual goals. so some people justify eating meat is recommended in hindu dharma quoting mahabharat.

sarabhanga
22 March 2006, 08:37 PM
Lord Rama was born as a Kshatriya, and when he entered the Dandakaranya he was a noble warrior and a hunter, and it can be assumed that he sometimes ate meat.

Although, by the time he launched his righteous attack on Lanka he was a true Brahmana in spirit, and I am sure that he was also a vegetarian.

Lord Rama, safely returned to Ayodhya, is the perfect ruler ~ the veritable “Philosopher King”.

And Rama’s adventure is the chosen path of all Yogins.

Arjuna
28 March 2006, 02:46 PM
Yoga and himsa are incompatible. Moksha and himsa are incompatible. The first stage in getting spiritual is giving up meat, there is no pointing in decieiving yourself.

While regarding Yoga (meaning hatha-yoga and ashtanga of Patanjali) it is right, as Sarabhanga already had said, regarding Moksha it is NOT.

Vedas never prohibit meat-eating, moreover certain yajnas include that (even cow meat BTW). Manavadharma-shastra says that no sin is there in meat-eating, although abstaining from it is preferred.
Both Shaiva and Shakta Agamas encourage animal sacrifice and thus eating of sacrificial meat. Krura-bali is necessary part of temple worship. Even in some vaishnava cults it is there, like that of Nrisimha.

In Tantric tradition ritual consumption of meat is a necessary part (though there may be some exceptions, meat in general is a must). In normal life Tantras neither prohibit nor suggest meat-eating, it is simly irrelevant to Tantric path to Moksha.
As my Srividya guru once said, "I have met siddhas who eat meat and met siddhas who do not. Thus i say it doesn't matter".

And regarding stopping meat to be first stage of getting spiritual, this is utter nonsense. In fact all spirituality deals with one's consciousness and not diet or job. Diet is a matter of ayurveda and not of Siddha-vidya and Brahma-janana.

sarabhanga
29 March 2006, 04:36 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

You are correct that Tantra does not require a vegetarian diet. And there are in effect two paths of Tantra practice: one that has no particular concern for Ahimsa, and another that (just as in orthodox Yoga traditions) is firmly based in Ahimsa.

The former practices are like “black magic”, and the latter are like “white magic”.

“Black” Tantra is very risky ~ both for the practitioner and for others; however “White” Tantra (by definition) can never be harmful.

Despite outward appearances, most Tantric practices do have the intention of overall benefit, and all meat that is consumed is normally killed, prepared, and eaten, in a ritual setting, with the utmost respect being shown to the life that has been lost “for the greater good”.

And to say that strict vegetarianism is not absolutely required for Yoga certainly does NOT mean that mindlessly consuming meat that was enslaved from birth on an intensive farm and slaughtered in terror and without any reverence for the significance of the sacrifice, and then packed and sold in the market for profit that will sustain the whole bloodthirsty chain, and then prepared and consumed with a similar lack of concern for the significance of actually taking another life, that (I repeat) does NOT mean that this kind of careless carnivorous diet is at all acceptable in any kind of Hindu Yoga tradition (tantric or otherwise).

Eating meat or not eating meat may be irrelevant to the Tantric path, but the attitude towards the sacrifice and its preparation, and the intentions of the sacrificer, are always of paramount importance.

Perhaps the first stage of “getting spiritual” is a continual examination of one’s actions and all of their potential repercussions.

Arjuna
29 March 2006, 05:45 AM
Namaskar!

What can be called “black magic” is not Tantra at all — though it is named so by many illiterate indians. Tantrism is essentially mystical path dealing with consciousness and not kind of occult manipulations to control outer world or spirits.

Vegetarianism is not rooted in Veda or Agama, it is not based on Shruti. It was developed in ascetic communities and then accepted by Jainism and Buddhism. Due to the growing popularity of Gautama’s teaching vegetarianism and idea of ahimsa had to be adopted into general Hindu dharma — in order to fight with these “heretical” religions. Brahmans won the battle, but at the cost of loosing some of their own ancient doctrines. Niyamas meant for brahmacharins (in conventional, vaidika sense) were spread to everyone, resulting in violation of dharma. Thus sacrifices became removed from the cult, surviving only in some Shakta traditions. In fact Shaktism in certains issues retained the most Vedic attitudes. Interesting enough, in many places Hindus eat fish and meat without any problem: Bengal, Kashmir, Nepal, Bali. In Bali Hindus eat beef — when Hinduism came there this prohibition was not yet invented.

There is no Tantra which requires vegetarianism. Yes, there are adepts who are vegetarians due to their habbits of normal life, not due to any prohibitions. And it is irrelevant whether in life one is vegetarian or not. Tantras stress the necessity of ritual usage of meat in personal sadhana and krura-bali in temple worship. But U are right, attitude in every case is sacrificial. Consuming meat is a symbolical killing of inner asuras by Kalika who resides in sadhaka’s body.

sAdhake kShobhamApanne devI kShobhaH prajAyate

sarabhanga
29 March 2006, 06:52 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

If “Black Tantra” (i.e. Tantra without Ahimsa) is only an imagining of illiterate Indians, then ALL true Tantra must be established in Ahimsa.



Manu Smriti XI:


All the bliss of gods and men is declared by the sages to whom the Veda was revealed, to have Tapas for its root, Tapas for its middle, and Tapas for its end. [235]

(The pursuit of sacred) knowledge is the Tapasya of a Brahmana, protecting (the people) is the Tapasya of a Kshatriya, (the pursuit of) his daily business is the Tapaya of a Vaisya, and service is the Tapasya of a Shudra. [236]

The sages who control themselves and subsist on fruit, roots, and air, survey the three worlds together with their moving and immovable (creatures) through their Tapas alone. [237]


Can you point to any Brahmana Rishi who is known for eating meat?

Arjuna
30 March 2006, 04:49 AM
Namaste, Sarabhanga!


If “Black Tantra” (i.e. Tantra without Ahimsa) is only an imagining of illiterate Indians, then ALL true Tantra must be established in Ahimsa.

Firstly, if U wish to use such distinction of Tantra into "black & white" U are to provide scriptural basis for that. Not from the point of vaishnava sectarian criticism, but from Agama. Which Tantric text represent "black" tradition which is "with himsa"? And what is the definition of ahimsa?

Tantras simply do not view sacrifice and eating of sacrificial meat as himsa. Same was the attitude of the Vedas and smriti.

Kalika-purana (67: 39) says:
"The animals are created by the self-born Creator for offering in sacrifice, hence killing an animal in a sacrifice is deemed to be a non-killing."

In Tantra sacrifice, purity and so on are primarily inner (as Mahachinacharakrama-tantra says, "mAnasaM shauchyaM"). When kaulika eats meat, it is a sacrifice to Brahman/Devi.

yatkaromi yadashnAmi yajjuhomi dadAmi yat.
yattat pashyAmi he devi tat karomi tvadarpaNam..

Everyone is to follow achara proper to him.
While to vaishnavas or yogis eating of meat is adharma (if judged by their Scriptures), to kaulas and shaktas it is dharma and punya. While Vedas obviously — at least — allow meat-eating, if not encourage (in two cases, one of sacrifice and second one on certian occasions — like in Brihadaranyaka Up. 6. 4. 18), there is no contradiction with their teaching.

For example, such texts like Kularnava-tantra and Kaulajnana-nirnaya of Matsyendranatha explicitly encourage consuming of meat. (Need exact verses?)


Can you point to any Brahmana Rishi who is known for eating meat?

If U mean "a sage/siddha who is from Brahmana caste", definitely yes (most of Kashmiri Shaiva siddhas and masters used meat in rituals; i assume some ate in normal life as well, like Sri Abhinavagupta who was a minister at the court; similar situation is with Bengal and Nepal).
BTW what about Matsyendranatha? Was he not a Brahmana? According to the earlies Natha text, Kaulajnana-nirnaya (10 century), he propogates meat eating!
If U speak exclusively of sages-ascetics of Vedic period, i have to see for those evidences. Of course sages who lived in woods had neither means to get meat (hunt? buy?) nor any need or desire to (in hot climate and having no physical work, that too in old age usually). So normally it is logical to assume they ate only vegetarian food. But on occasions of taking part in yajnas (upon being invited by kings) they had taken sacrificial meat. That must be mentioned in Vedic samhitas — we have to find it. I am not well-versed in vaidika literature to give quotations on a spot.

One more thing, U speak about Brahmanas — but who of non-indians are to be classified as such? According to smriti all westerners (including me and U) are mlechchhas, worse than shudras. Which smarta rules are given to them? None.

Vegetarianism was a prescription for (again, with exceptions):
1. Sannyasins
2. Brahmacharins
3. Brahmanas in some sects in early times and in later period of majority
4. Yogins-ascetics
So let us make clear distinctions.

For Kaula-brahmans ritual meat usage is prescribed. Sannyasa in Vedic sense is not encouraged and sometimes prohibited (it is replaced by Avadhuta-ashrama). Brahmacharya in Vedic sense is abolished and in Kaula sense it includes meat-eating (see Tantraloka, 29th ahnika). Ascetism is prohibited, the doctrine is to achieve the union of bhukti and mukti in perfect Samarasya. Thus, for Tantra there is NO vegetarianism as niyama at all.

To conclude, what i mean to say is only this: to be vegetarian is not a requirement for being spiritual and achieving Moksha and Brahma-jnana.
However i never said that for some paths it may be required, or that for some people it is preferrable to be vegetarians.

Pranam,
Arjuna

Ram
30 March 2006, 11:49 AM
Can you point to any Brahmana Rishi who is known for eating meat?

Yes, Sage Agastya. Haven't you heard of the story of Sage Agastya and Vatapi?

Arjuna
30 March 2006, 12:52 PM
In fact the whole Vedic culture was centered upon animal-sacrifice. Consuming of sacrificial meat was essential part of ritual. Ashvamedha, agnishtoma etc — brahmanas necessarily ate meat, Rishis as well.
In Shaivagamas, Bhairavagamas and Kaulatantras sacrifices have their place.
Thus, ALL Shruti if in favor of sacrifices and meat eating (in ritual context).




edited by satay: Vedic culture is not a 'cult' I assume you were just trying to shorten the word to save time in typing.

coolbodhi
30 March 2006, 06:52 PM
Yes, Sage Agastya. Haven't you heard of the story of Sage Agastya and Vatapi?

What is sage agastya and vatapi's story?

sarabhanga
30 March 2006, 08:24 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Firstly, I defined two classes of Tantra (based on their relative concern for Ahimsa); and for want of any technical term I used the words “black” and “white”, which basically corresponds to the common understanding of Tantra that is intended for a sum total of greater good (i.e. “white”) and Tantra that is more selfish and concerned with only with individual benefit without the boundaries of Ahimsa (i.e. “black”). If you can supply more appropriate terminology, please do. But the actual categories do not require any scriptural back-up.

Ahimsa is “Not Harmful” or “Harmlessness”, and perhaps the intention is clarified when the definition is given in more positive terms ~ in which case, the best translation is “Love” (in its most general sense).

We are in agreement on the nature of sacrificial or ritual meat-eating and its position in Hindu traditions, although most people extend their vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism into all aspects of life and most non-vegetarians do not see their meat eating as anything sacred ~ they merely deny that there is any spiritual importance in one’s diet beyond staying physically strong and healthy.

“When a Kaulika eats meat it is a sacrifice to Brahman” ~ this does NOT mean that Kaulikas recommend that everyone should kill animals (or promote their slaughter) without thought and at every opportunity !

The Kashmiri Shaivas such as Abhinavagupta are considerably later than original Vedic traditions.

Meat has always been included in the diet of non-Brahmana Hindus, but until very recently the animals were always ritually killed and only on special occasions. And this is still ALWAYS the case in traditional Hindu villages throughout India. Only a few towns that are traditionally entirely Brahmana have restrictions on meat consumption.

Ascetics who live in the forest have always had the opportunity of hunting, but among Brahmana ascetics the vegetarian diet (not including special rituals) has always been preferred. And the most revered of ascetics have always been those who deliberately restrict their diet, particularly resorting only to roots, shoots, fruits, and particular (originally Indian) grains. Rice and wheat are commonly not allowed because both are too new-fangled and “foreign” to the most traditional of sage’s diet !

And ultimately only fruits are consumed, because only the fruits of plants are actually offered to us by those plants with the “intention” that we might eat them and spread their seeds. To include anything else in one’s diet must be tainted to some extent with the idea of theft of property that does not belong to us and which was actually being put to good use by its owner at the time !

Anyone who is recognized as a true “knower of Brahman” is known as a true Brahmana.

I have entered Sannyasa with the traditional Samskaras, and during that process I have gone from Shudra to Brahmana and back to “Shudra” again. All Sannyasins have gone beyond any notion of caste discrimination, and only the most superficial judgement would conclude that I was a “Mleccha”.

There are NO absolute restrictions on diet for anyone except Brahmanas. And what Jainism and Buddhism actually did was to spread the ancient Rishis ideal of general vegetarianism as a rule for the whole population. They did not “invent” the idea for themselves and then “contaminate” Vedic Dharma with the idea of Ahimsa as the ultimate ideal.

Aghoris are known for eating human flesh, but this is ONLY done in a ritual context, and most Aghoris would only actually do it once in their life (in their initiation). So just because Aghora says that one should eat human flesh, that certainly does not recommend that all spiritual aspirants should become regular cannibals !

sarabhanga
30 March 2006, 09:19 PM
Vatapisudana (Agastya Muni) certainly devoured the Asura Vatapi (the “Ally of the Wind” ~ who is “wind-swelling” and “fermentation” personified). But that has no bearing on the debate of vegetarianism !

Namo Narayana
31 March 2006, 08:02 AM
Vatapisudana (Agastya Muni) certainly devoured the Asura Vatapi (the “Ally of the Wind” ~ who is “wind-swelling” and “fermentation” personified). But that has no bearing on the debate of vegetarianism !

Because he devoured them in the form of a mango.

Arjuna
31 March 2006, 09:07 AM
Namaste, Sarabhanga!

In fact, between us there is only little disagreement. I would rather say it is inessential.

The point i wanted to mention is the following:
In my view diet is in fact a matter of health only and not of spirituality (a matter of ayurveda and not Dharma). But intention with which one takes his food is a does matter much. If one is eating rice and vegs or even nourishes himself with pure air, but he get proud with “being spiritual, pure” etc, he poisons his own soul (and inevitably gets respective karma-phala). If one is eating meat or even leftovers with pure consciousness, no sin touches him. Ahimsa deals with one’s heart and intention (and actions in respect of other living beings), not with diet.
Also there is an hierarchy created by God, and a human has a right to use lower forms for his sustenance — but with balance and gratitude to Him. For some meat is necessary and good (in limited amounts) and for other it is not healthy — that depends on constitution of body, activities and climate. Even for health it is better to eat less (or none) meat, but more sea-food and fish.
This all is right for common people. There is an exception for those who follow particular achara and had got instructions from their guru. In that case rules are set by guru and Agamas. And siddhas and masters are free to select their way as they like.
yatra yatra gajo yAti tatra mArgo yathA bhavet.
kulayogI chared yatra sa sa mArgaH kuleshvari.. (Kularnava 9. 81)

Vajradhara
31 March 2006, 11:18 AM
Namaste all,

this topic, as you can imagine, is often discussed amongst Buddhists as well.

generally speaking, there are two operative views to be found, strictures which apply to the monastics and precepts which apply to the laiety.

within the context of the monastics, the consumption of flesh can only take place if a special set of circumstances are met, chiefly, that if the monk/nun know the flesh was prepared for their consumption, they are not permitted to partake.

if, however, a farmer had killed a wild boar and was selling the flesh in the market, a monk/nun could consume it if they so chose.

Buddha Shakyamuni, like many, many groups of spiritual beings, collected alms as the food for the day. in that scenario, he advised that food was like medicine and that we should take our medicine even if it tastes bad or seems incorrect.

for a layperson (like myself) the monastic strictures do not apply. so, technically, i could choose to consume flesh if i so chose.

that being said, i've been vegetarian for over 7 years now, not because my religious practice instructs me to be so but becuase of the realizations of my own practice and the inter-related nature of beings.

so, overall, i would say that this question, at least from the Buddhist point of view, is one which each being should decide for themselves predicated on their own realizations and capacities.

metta,

~v

satay
03 April 2006, 09:28 AM
Also there is an hierarchy created by God, and a human has a right to use lower forms for his sustenance — but with balance and gratitude to Him.

namaste,
Who gave you this "right" to use lower forms?
Just curious.

Meat eating is avoided so that the mind and the heart can avoid unnecessary violence as much as possible but Hinduism recognizes that we kill millions of air borne living things every breath we take so the point is not of killing animals but of 'unnecessary' slaughtering them to please our senses.

satay

Singhi Kaya
03 April 2006, 12:42 PM
I just had a small argument in the Audarya_fellowship forum with staunch vegetarians there. Few points, I will put them one after other

1. Non-Veg is not forbidden in Hinduism, certain sects are strict about it other's arent.
2. Veg is preferred because of sattavic nature of veg diet. Non-Veg is rajasic or tamasic (depending on how it is prepared). It is not suitable for some spiritual paths, but better not be judgemental about it.
3. Pinnacle of Hindu-Dharma is the Gita and it says attachement to any thing particular is cause of sorrow. So, I believe eat what is easily available and which suits you. Just refrain from beef as it harms our culture.
4. I have nothing for or against vegetarianism - as mentioned Veg diet is sattic and perhaves necessary for those seriously in the path of yoga. But there are some people who think eating non-veg is sinfull, it is ahimsa (btw, ahimsa<> nonkilling)and we will go to hell for eating meat. God has forbidden meat etc. I just want to say such ideas are anti-hindu. If you think like that then one of the abrahamic religions will suit you better.

Arjuna
03 April 2006, 03:49 PM
BTW none abrahamic religion prohibits meat eating ;). And never connect vegetarianism with spirituality. In fact from point of view of study of religion, we can see that strict vegetarianism was a feature of certian small marginal sects (with few exceptions). None of great religions consider it to be important (Jainism is the only exception i remember — but it has grown out of marginal and ascetic Hindu sect anyway).

Arjuna
03 April 2006, 03:57 PM
First of all, GOD. Which is evident from Scriptures (Vedas and Agamas), from tradition and from logic (sattarka).
Attachment to vegetarianism is *attachment*. It is a worldly bond.
Food is for body, meditation and prayer is for spirit. Confusion is always leading to moha.

Finally, one who follows spiritual path is to follows its prescriptions. Thus for someone meat is poison, for another one nectar.

Singhi Kaya
03 April 2006, 04:03 PM
I'm aware of abrahamic religions in for of Islam and xianity. I was speaking about the attitude. "You will go to hell for eating meat!" sounds uncomfortable close to "You will go to hell for not accepting christ in your hear" arraaagh!!!

I agree with you, though my study of religions has lot of gaps:p, that non-vegitarianism seems to be a marginal aspect of dharma. In western religion too.

Buddhism with it's literal non-killing still accepts meat eating (i find the logic a bit twisted though).

Singhi Kaya
03 April 2006, 04:14 PM
Attachment to vegetarianism is *attachment*. It is a worldly bond.
Food is for body, meditation and prayer is for spirit. Confusion is always leading to moha.
100% agreed.

Arjuna
03 April 2006, 05:56 PM
Naturally being more intelligent and powerful, human being has such right. U have to ask, why doesn't he have such a right (in a case he doesn't) — while having a right is taken for granted.

Nature is lacking idea of ahimsa (as non-violence). Have U seen it somewhere? The law of Nature is struggle. Same was said by Sri Krishna — when Arjuna started speculating about ahimsa stuff.

sarabhanga
04 April 2006, 01:01 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Vegetarian diet does not automatically make one spiritual, although true spirituality generally leads to vegetarianism. All of the Jainas are strictly vegetarian, and while Bauddhas are commonly omnivorous their occasional meat eating is restricted to animals that they themselves have not personally killed and whose death might be considered “accidental”.

Buddhism and Jainism are against killing animals, and the standard practice of Hindu Rishis and Sannyasins has always been to abstain from consuming any flesh (other than their own, in Tapasya).

In traditional Hinduism, only those Avadhutas who are equal with Shri Dattatreya are beyond even the requirement of considered vegetarianism. And, if you look at most of the orders that follow Guru Dattatreya today, their members are almost exclusively strictly vegetarian.

Until the time of Ashoka Maurya, there was no general rule of vegetarianism for the whole population ~ but the path of Sanatana Dharma has always been vegetarian for those who are nearly approaching the Brahman (leaving aside the idea of consciously sacrificial meat-eating in a ritual context, which cannot be denied as an integral part of ancient Hindu Dharma).

Of course, if the only available food is meat, and it must be eaten to survive, then there is little fault in eating it ~ although, one who truly knows the Brahman would have no fear of giving up the individual mortal body and more concern for ultimate spiritual principles, and out of Ahimsa (i.e. ultimate Love or Compassion) would either leave the body or (if possible) leave the situation.

There is no general rule for the whole of Hinduism, and the advice of one’s own particular Guru is most important, and ultimately it comes down to a question of how much “collateral damage” one considers as being acceptable in the pursuit of one’s personal desires.

Arjuna
04 April 2006, 05:35 AM
Namaskar!

///There is no general rule for the whole of Hinduism, and the advice of one’s own particular Guru is most important, and ultimately it comes down to a question of how much “collateral damage” one considers as being acceptable in the pursuit of one’s personal desires.///

Yes U are right. Especially in mystical traditions it is all on Guru.

///In traditional Hinduism, only those Avadhutas who are equal with Shri Dattatreya are beyond even the requirement of considered vegetarianism. And, if you look at most of the orders that follow Guru Dattatreya today, their members are almost exclusively strictly vegetarian.///

It is not right in regard of Kaulas. For instance my Kulacharya is Kaulavadhuta and he is not vegetarian. When i got my avadhuta diksha in the vratas i took vegetarianism was not included either.
Kaula-tantrism is a trend of traditional Hindiusm, right? Not less than Natha-sampradaya or Shri-vaishnava at least...

Singhi Kaya
04 April 2006, 06:48 AM
Nature is lacking idea of ahimsa (as non-violence). Have U seen it somewhere? The law of Nature is struggle. Same was said by Sri Krishna — when Arjuna started speculating about ahimsa stuff.

... And there lies one of the keys to gita, overlooked by all since.
Karma is inert by itself-it binds us when it enters our chitta-hiranyagarbha.
each thing we do while being attached in our minds creates a desire which acts as a seed to the next karma.
the negative nature of non-violence is in our minds. from natures perpective and the lord's it is just a cosmic dance.
non-violence is a high virtue since it effects the mind negatively-but only when we act with our ego.
Duty is far greater then any of these divine virtues.

when is non - violence right then? We don't have krishna anymore like arjuna had? Or do we?
Hint: In dev asur sampad bibhag yog, "Teja" is listed as a divine quality
Another hint: Teja if you watch closely is not generated in mind, but in our pranic body (prana may kosha). A yogic student knows pranic body is under the perview of bijnan maya kosha ("atomic body") and the attma itself and not mind.
Just notice when you see someone who is torturing a kid in the street. The feeling of vengeance that arises in your system will have little to do with your mental moha's. It doesn't even starts in mind. The blood starts to boil automatically. Ofcourse it is not difficult to supress this with your mental moha's, think it as anger and keep thinking what you believe in mind is right.

2 pence and a taste of shaktibad.

satay
04 April 2006, 09:37 AM
We all forget sometimes that being vegetarian is a choice and not a big deal at all. Even a pigeon is a "vegetarian"!

:)
satay

sarabhanga
05 April 2006, 09:16 PM
Namaste Singhi,

Very few Hindus actually attain Liberation in this life, but that does NOT mean that Moksha is merely a trivial obsession that is aimed at by some fringe groups with marginal significance in Hindu Dharma!

If everyone follows the majority, then the whole is reduced to the average; but if everyone follows the few who are wise and true, then the whole is raised up to the highest!

And this is a serious problem for democracy ~ for unless the majority are intelligent and well informed and veritable “philosopher kings” themselves, the end result of democratic process is bound to be mundane, and often exceedingly foolish.

sarabhanga
06 April 2006, 06:35 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Traditionally, only Brahmanas can enter Sannyasa.

And traditionally, all Brahmanas first enter Brahmacarya.

And traditionally, all Brahmacaris remain celibate and are instructed in Dharma.

Traditionally, Dharma is based in Karma and Kama.

And when one understands the inviolable law of Karma, and the fundamental principle of absolute Kama (i.e. universal Compassion, or simply Love), then any casual killing (or even implication in such carnage), merely for the satisfaction of one’s own personal desires and in the presence of less hurtful alternatives, is just not possible.

I have taken no vow of vegetarianism, but I know that if I did not have a secure history of vegetarian diet then I would never have been allowed to eat in the presence of Dashanami Sannyasins or orthodox Natha Sadhus (e.g. Gorakhnatha Pantha) ~ let alone allowed to take vows of Sannyasa!

In the past, however, Gorakhnathis were generally meat-eaters (except for beef and horse meat).

And of course, there are “Grihastha Sannyasins”, who are known as Gharbari Sannyasis, Gosains, or “Aughars”, who are still often carnivorous (and generally not celibate).

The divergent views on meat consumption historically held by Dashanami Nagas and Darshani Nathas has lead to violent disagreement in the past, so I do not wish to dwell on this matter.

Namo Narayana
10 April 2006, 09:24 AM
there is a story that shiva accepted meat as offering from a hunter. so does this justify non vegetarian diet based on ones tradition ?

nekozuki
10 April 2006, 01:21 PM
Take a human anatomy class, you'll never want to eat meat again.....trust me. When your teacher starts comparing your thigh muscle to the meat in the grocery store, you will definitely want to stay a vegetarian.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 02:05 PM
Not everyone is so much sentimental :)

Namo Narayana
10 April 2006, 02:05 PM
I have always been a vegetarian. is it how you became a veggie if you are ?

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 02:37 PM
Thank U, Sarabhanga :)

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 03:11 PM
Take a human anatomy class, you'll never want to eat meat again.....trust me. When your teacher starts comparing your thigh muscle to the meat in the grocery store, you will definitely want to stay a vegetarian.
:duh: ... initially thought you just mentioned anatomy. thought I will declare that rat dissection had no impact on my food habits...

nekozuki
10 April 2006, 06:04 PM
That's one of the reasons but another reason is that it's actually unhealthy and most of the animals are innocent. If we were starving to death and had no choice but to hunt an animal like the Native Americans did where there was no wasting of the animal than that's understandable, but now animals are just slaughtered....mercilessly.

Namo Narayana
10 April 2006, 06:27 PM
human beings have already occupied lot of the animal habitat and animals have no place to live.

nekozuki
10 April 2006, 06:37 PM
Yeah, some people just need to stop reproducing like rabbits lol :p

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 08:09 PM
Foolish religious leaders preach against contraceptives' usage and against abortions. This is a result we have...

nekozuki
10 April 2006, 08:18 PM
While this is offtopic I will rant. Contraceptives I don't have a problem with because it promotes safe sex but you should still have sex responsibly in other words with someone you love and who loves you back. Abortion is someone's personal choice but the fetus is alive once the mother realizes she is pregnant, it should be taken into consideration that you are killing a living thing much like slaughtering an innocent animal :) Karma will come back. Was it the baby's fault you got pregnant? no, it was your choice. But at the same time it shouldn't be made illegal because guess what will come back: the clothes hangers.

Namo Narayana
10 April 2006, 09:36 PM
sometimes you use a condom but still get pregnant. what should one do at that point ?

nekozuki
10 April 2006, 09:49 PM
Yes, it does break but like I said above have sex cautiously. Yes, I know I'm being old-fashioned but there are consequences to think about. If the condom breaks and you can't afford the child and the jerk leaves you then the best option is adoption to a good family. There are many families out there who would love a child and can't have one.

Arjuna
11 April 2006, 11:10 AM
Isn't this topic off-theme? ;)

U may not use condoms at all and still take care not to make woman pregnant. Basic knowlegde of physiology is always helpful.

Singhi Kaya
11 April 2006, 11:29 AM
post deleted.

Singhi Kaya
11 April 2006, 11:30 AM
Isn't this topic off-theme? ;)

U may not use condoms at all and still take care not to make woman pregnant. Basic knowlegde of physiology is always helpful.

errr...nekozuki is the woman here I think;)




singhi to himself - stop reefing good threads

Namo Narayana
11 April 2006, 11:53 AM
singhi, when you edit a thread, it gives you option to delete it.

nekozuki
11 April 2006, 12:48 PM
errr...nekozuki is the woman here I think;)



Got that right lol ;) Again though abortion is a personal choice and so is premarital sex, but it can have consequences.

Singhi Kaya
11 April 2006, 01:05 PM
singhi, when you edit a thread, it gives you option to delete it.
I try that, but sometimes the button refuses to appear - what can I do then?:rolleyes:



On, the poositive side it does pad up my post count and hopefully increases my reputation (don't ask in which direction). But I'm not yet sure though.

Arjuna
11 April 2006, 01:27 PM
errr...nekozuki is the woman here I think;)
singhi to himself - stop reefing good threads


My post was in reply to another one ;)

orlando
27 April 2006, 10:35 AM
Now, if my friend Damodar (from hindunet) were to read this we would get into this argument again about how meat eating is necessary for bharat's raksha!
satay

I sended in hindunet a pm to Damodar.I inviteted him here in hindudharmaforums.
Hope he well ready my pm and will come here.There will be more "action" in this forum.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
27 April 2006, 11:47 AM
I sended in hindunet a pm to Damodar.I inviteted him here in hindudharmaforums.
Hope he well ready my pm and will come here.There will be more "action" in this forum.
Regards,
Orlando.

Thanks for that. I also invited him a few weeks ago but perhaps he has not checked his pms.

vedic_kings
04 May 2006, 09:01 PM
And regarding stopping meat to be first stage of getting spiritual, this is utter nonsense. In fact all spirituality deals with one's consciousness and not diet or job. Diet is a matter of ayurveda and not of Siddha-vidya and Brahma-janana.

I find this interesting.

Are you saying meat does not dull the mind?

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 03:56 PM
I find this interesting.
Are you saying meat does not dull the mind?

It depends on several factors (and ultimately on what U mean by "mind").
Meat is rather tough stuff for digestion and truely speaking not very healthy product, though in some climatical surroundings and other circumstances it is practically needed. However this matter is related to medical science and not to spirituality.
Balance in food is always good for health. Excess in meat-eating is verily bad for health and consequently for mind, if we mean "emotional mind" and not buddhi or Consciousness. But again, there are plenty of vegetarian food which is much more tamasic than meat (especially some sweets), and overeating of any products results in dullness of body and "mind".

On the other hand, spirituality (religion) deals with buddhi (right understanding) and Consciousness/Awareness, bauddha-jnana and paurusha-jnana, which are totally independent from health and diet. Bhakti is related to pure Consciousness and thus is also independent from "mind".

For a fact we know of many saints (Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Chistian etc.) who ate meat, which didn't prevent them from being one with God, being Siddhas and Jivanmuktas, enjoying Brahmananda and Lokananda, and serving humanity.

To conclude, Scriptures prescribe meat-eating as a part of certain rituals (Vedic and Agamic) and allow it as a common practice (though usually it is said that it's better to abstain from it, as in passage of Manu-smriti).
Meat is prohibited in some Shastras for ascetics who practice yoga, and it is prohibited in some Hindu traditions (mostly Vaishnava). But in general case it is allowed (including for brahmanas), and never it is said that vegetarianism is a must for everyone or for every upasaka and yogi.

satay
05 May 2006, 04:21 PM
It depends on several factors (and ultimately on what U mean by "mind").
Meat is rather tough stuff for digestion and truely speaking not very healthy product, though in some climatical surroundings and other circumstances it is practically needed. However this matter is related to medical science and not to spirituality.

yes, Actually I have read that meat actually doesn't get digested in our intestines...it just rots there until it is turns to waste and then moves out. Our body is not designed to 'digest' meat! Let me see if I can find the link where I got this info from...

I am not supporting meat eating though, I think that eating meat affects the mind/body/spirit balance.

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 04:30 PM
yes, Actually I have read that meat actually doesn't get digested in our intestines...it just rots there until it is turns to waste and then moves out. Our body is not designed to 'digest' meat! Let me see if I can find the link where I got this info from...
I am not supporting meat eating though, I think that eating meat affects the mind/body/spirit balance.

It verily does digest :), though it isn't easily digested perhaps.
This view U mentioned is a veg propaganda only.

Food affects body and to a degree mind as well, but spirit (Consciousness) is beyond these and unaffected by any kind of diet.

Ram
05 May 2006, 04:34 PM
All talks of Yoga being separate from eating habits is plain gibberish. Where does Yoga begin? Right from the physical senses., which are tightly governed by the food we eat. A habitual meat eater will loose divine qualities like compassion and kind hearteness. We cannot simply be compassionate towards fellow humans and at the same time be cruel to animals - it is double talk. All meat eating except for unavoidable circumstances are disqualifications, no point cheating yourself. It is said that a true Brahmin cannot even bear the sight of blood, he is filled with so much love for every creation of God.

No Ahimsa, No Yoga - good bye!

vedic_kings
05 May 2006, 04:40 PM
Well I know that meat is not for the yoga path.

The reason being is that meat eating violates the yogic principle of ahimsa or non-violence, which is the first disciplines of yoga practice. If our yoga practice is based on any kind of herm to other, we are not likely to go far on our yogic path.

orlando
05 May 2006, 04:41 PM
Very good reply Shri Ram.
May Sriman-Narayana and Sri Lakshmi bless you!

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 05:00 PM
All talks of Yoga being separate from eating habits is plain gibberish. Where does Yoga begin? Right from the physical senses., which are tightly governed by the food we eat. A habitual meat eater will loose divine qualities like compassion and kind hearteness. We cannot simply be compassionate towards fellow humans and at the same time be cruel to animals - it is double talk. All meat eating except for unavoidable circumstances are disqualifications, no point cheating yourself. It is said that a true Brahmin cannot even bear the sight of blood, he is filled with so much love for every creation of God.
No Ahimsa, No Yoga - good bye!

Animal sacrifices are a necessary part of Vedic and Agamic cult (Shaiva and Shakta, and in some rare cases Vaishnava as well). Sacrifice is not considered to be himsa and sacrificial meat is prasada.

Hindu scriptures permit meat-eating. Vaishnavism is the only exception.

Yoga is union of Jivatman and Paramatman, and Shiva and Shakti. It has nothing to do with the diet. Many Mahasiddhas were and are meat-eaters, as well as many were and are vegetarians. Thus it is irrelative to spirituality, whether one eats meat or not.

Please keep in mind that Yoga may differ from Ur ideas of Yoga ;).
There are different systems of it, and believe me, what i said is not "plain gibberish", but the teaching of several Hindu traditions (in fact, a Vedic teaching as well).

vedic_kings
05 May 2006, 05:48 PM
Animal sacrifices are a necessary part of Vedic and Agamic cult (Shaiva and Shakta, and in some rare cases Vaishnava as well). Sacrifice is not considered to be himsa and sacrificial meat is prasada.

Hindu scriptures permit meat-eating. Vaishnavism is the only exception.

Yoga is union of Jivatman and Paramatman, and Shiva and Shakti. It has nothing to do with the diet. Many Mahasiddhas were and are meat-eaters, as well as many were and are vegetarians. Thus it is irrelative to spirituality, whether one eats meat or not.

Please keep in mind that Yoga may differ from Ur ideas of Yoga ;).
There are different systems of it, and believe me, what i said is not "plain gibberish", but the teaching of several Hindu traditions (in fact, a Vedic teaching as well).

Well I am speaking of the eigth limbs of yoga (Raja Yoga).

The first of the eigth limbs is Yama, which mean rules of social conduct, which are: nonviolence (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), control of sexual energy (brahmacharya), non-stealing (asteya) and non-clinging (anabhinivesha).

If one cannot follow this, then yoga maynot be for you.

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 06:12 PM
Well I am speaking of the eigth limbs of yoga (Raja Yoga).
The first of the eigth limbs is Yama, which mean rules of social conduct, which are: nonviolence (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), control of sexual energy (brahmacharya), non-stealing (asteya) and non-clinging (anabhinivesha).
If one cannot follow this, then yoga maynot be for you.

I am not sure if vegetarianism was originally prescribed in Patanjali's ashtanga (maybe it was), as well as what was Patanjali's idea of brahmacharya. Perhaps Sarabhanga may illumine us on these points.

But Patanjali's yoga is not the only Yoga system of Hinduism. There are Shaiva systems of Yoga such as Agamic one (as in Netra-tantra etc), Natha-yoga, yoga of Shaiva-siddhanta (as in Tirumantiram), yoga system of Vira-shaivism; there are Shakta (Kaula) systems of Yoga, there are Vaishnava ones. Out of these meat is strictly prohibited only in Vaishnava tradition.
And in Tantric systems of Yoga meat is taken as a part of sadhana.

So, it is wrong to say that "Yogi cannot eat meat" without distinguishing which type of yogi we speak of.

vedic_kings
05 May 2006, 06:34 PM
I am not sure if vegetarianism was originally prescribed in Patanjali's ashtanga (maybe it was), as well as what was Patanjali's idea of brahmacharya. Perhaps Sarabhanga may illumine us on these points.

But Patanjali's yoga is not the only Yoga system of Hinduism. There are Shaiva systems of Yoga such as Agamic one (as in Netra-tantra etc), Natha-yoga, yoga of Shaiva-siddhanta (as in Tirumantiram), yoga system of Vira-shaivism; there are Shakta (Kaula) systems of Yoga, there are Vaishnava ones. Out of these meat is strictly prohibited only in Vaishnava tradition.
And in Tantric systems of Yoga meat is taken as a part of sadhana.

So, it is wrong to say that "Yogi cannot eat meat" without distinguishing which type of yogi we speak of.

I see what you are saying.

So let me ask you this would God eat meat?

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 06:55 PM
I see what you are saying.
So let me ask you this would God eat meat?

Not less than any other offered item.

Of course, God is not "eating" anything as we do, since He is Self-sufficient and all objects exist in Him only. But in a relative sence He does eat meat when it is offered with devotion and according to Agamic or Vedic prescriptions. Meat offering is a necessary part of certain rituals (which is prescribed in God's revelation, Shruti) and thus it has to be done.

From a yogic point of view, God in us eats all food we offer. Kaula-yogi eats meat and offers it to Bhairava inside himself.

Ram
06 May 2006, 12:43 AM
Animal sacrifices are a necessary part of Vedic and Agamic cult (Shaiva and Shakta, and in some rare cases Vaishnava as well). Sacrifice is not considered to be himsa and sacrificial meat is prasada.


Animal sacrifices are dead wrong! Any modern Hindu will tell you that. All these were done in ignorance. Killing an animal will get you some nice karma to work out! Animal sacrifice does not even belong to Karma Yoga, it is only a Karma, a bad one.




Hindu scriptures permit meat-eating. Vaishnavism is the only exception.


Perhaps Vaishnavism is the only true religion? Just kidding....that is perhaps one of the reasons why Shri Badarayana has criticized both Pasupata and Shakta religions.




Yoga is union of Jivatman and Paramatman, and Shiva and Shakti. It has nothing to do with the diet. Many Mahasiddhas were and are meat-eaters, as well as many were and are vegetarians. Thus it is irrelative to spirituality, whether one eats meat or not.


Are you seeing your jivatman or the paramatman? This is meaningless talk. All Yogis see only their physical bodies until they are quite advanced. Ahimsa is fundamental to Yoga, whatever you be.






Please keep in mind that Yoga may differ from Ur ideas of Yoga ;).
There are different systems of it, and believe me, what i said is not "plain gibberish", but the teaching of several Hindu traditions (in fact, a Vedic teaching as well).

Those systems that encourage meat eating are perhaps not Yoga at all. Vedas can be misinterpreted to support meat eating, but that will never get you anywhere near the goal of vedas. Vedas cannot be understood literally, they are not meant for that. All knowledgeable Hindus know this.

There is no problem with meat eating. Perhaps that is even necessary to avoid food scarcity. But dont mix it with Yoga, which is quite spiritual and where non violence to all creatures in word and deed stands foremost among all Dharmas.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 03:15 AM
Animal sacrifices are dead wrong! Any modern Hindu will tell you that. All these were done in ignorance. Killing an animal will get you some nice karma to work out! Animal sacrifice does not even belong to Karma Yoga, it is only a Karma, a bad one.

"Modern hindu" who tells this is blatantly wrong, and by telling this he shows his ignorance of Hindu tradition.

Sacrificial killing of an animal according to Scriptural rules is not himsa (violence), but a necessary part of Vedic, Agamic and Puranic cult.
Proper sacrifice of an animal brings good karma (both to a sacrificer and to an animal), as told in Vedas, Upanishads and Agamas — in SHRUTI. Same is accepted in Smriti, Puranas and Itihasas.

Manu-smriti (V.32) says: "The one who, having worshipped gods and ancestors, eats meat, which he bought, acquired himself or from others, makes no sin."


Perhaps Vaishnavism is the only true religion? Just kidding....that is perhaps one of the reasons why Shri Badarayana has criticized both Pasupata and Shakta religions.

Badarayana criticised Pashupata and Pancharatra (Vaishnavism), but where did he criticise Shaktism?

By the way, in Vaishnavism animal sacrifices also have a place: according to Haribhakti-vilasa, krura-bali should be performed at the consecration of temples of Narasimha.


Are you seeing your jivatman or the paramatman? This is meaningless talk. All Yogis see only their physical bodies until they are quite advanced. Ahimsa is fundamental to Yoga, whatever you be.

The one who sees only his physical body, is verily not a Yogi!

Ahimsa is OK, but ritual meat eating is not a himsa, as well as any meat eating after having worshipped God — this is the teaching of Shruti and Smriti.


Those systems that encourage meat eating are perhaps not Yoga at all. Vedas can be misinterpreted to support meat eating, but that will never get you anywhere near the goal of vedas. Vedas cannot be understood literally, they are not meant for that. All knowledgeable Hindus know this.
There is no problem with meat eating. Perhaps that is even necessary to avoid food scarcity. But dont mix it with Yoga, which is quite spiritual and where non violence to all creatures in word and deed stands foremost among all Dharmas.

1. U cannot judge any systems which U do not know ;).

2. No one has got a monopoly over the word "yoga": it is not only the system of Patanjali or Krishnamacharya!

3. Vedas DO support and prescribe ritual meat eating, this is a undeniable fact. Vegetarianism was never a must in Vedic religion. One really has to pervert the whole doctrine of Vedas in order to make them promoting vegetarianism.

4. Vedas, Upanishads and Gita do not prohibit meat eating. Agamas of Shaiva and Shakta traditions do not prohibit it. And many systems of Yoga are based upon this twofold Shruti.
Patanjali as i know also doesn't prohibit meat, at least directly. In texts of Natha-yoga vegetarianism generally is not prescribed either (though it may be prescribed in some texts, especially those of a later period).

Ram
06 May 2006, 05:07 AM
"Modern hindu" who tells this is blatantly wrong, and by telling this he shows his ignorance of Hindu tradition.

Sacrificial killing of an animal according to Scriptural rules is not himsa (violence), but a necessary part of Vedic, Agamic and Puranic cult.
Proper sacrifice of an animal brings good karma (both to a sacrificer and to an animal), as told in Vedas, Upanishads and Agamas — in SHRUTI. Same is accepted in Smriti, Puranas and Itihasas.


The animal did not ask for the karma right? Would you mind if I drag you and offer as a sacrifice and promise you some good Karma? The goal of all these ****** practices is svarga. Svarga is the highest attainment of Purva MImasa, and has no eternal benefit. After being in svarga for a while, you will be born in this world again due to the bad karma of killing. Buddha rejected the vedas for these foolish rituals. Adi Shankara has completely demolished these practices. Vaishnavas have not denounced Purva MImamsa, but rejected all rituals with mere material benefits.




Badarayana criticised Pashupata and Pancharatra (Vaishnavism), but where did he criticise Shaktism?


Badarayana critized Pancharatra- is the interpretation of Shankara and no one else. The same verses have been used against Shakta by some commentrators. Shaktisim finds basis only in puranas(none in shruti), and consequently needed no criticism from a vedantic perspective. Only dsiputed positions are ever contested in vedanta sutras, and Shaktism does not even come close, infact has no shruti in its favour. Similarly, other philosphical positions like Kaumaram, Vainayakam needed no such criticisms because they were never in the contest.(no shruti basis)



By the way, in Vaishnavism animal sacrifices also have a place: according to Haribhakti-vilasa, krura-bali should be performed at the consecration of temples of Narasimha.


Please read Mahabaratha and Bhagavatam before venturing to talk about Vaishnavism.





The one who sees only his physical body, is verily not a Yogi!


That means virtually no one is a Yogi. And that means you are still a kid in spirituality and consequenty need to follow the very basis of spirituality - ahimsa.




Ahimsa is OK, but ritual meat eating is not a himsa, as well as any meat eating after having worshipped God — this is the teaching of Shruti and Smriti.


Hmm, so you are essentially ruling out meat eating except for occasional rituals? That wont be much objectionable. However, a Yogi has no need to perform such rituals. You read my previous post, I have only said dont mix Yoga and meat eating. No problems if ordinary people do that and decide to keep incarnating for ever. If any ritual requires so it does not belong to Yoga and has no spiritual value. They have only as much value as brushing the teeth - purely materialistic value.






1. U cannot judge any systems which U do not know ;).

2. No one has got a monopoly over the word "yoga": it is not only the system of Patanjali or Krishnamacharya!


This is a Hindu forum, and hence all Christian Yoga, Muslim Yoga and other Himsa Yogas will be criticized here. Can you trace your own beleifs to vedas? Can you substantiate your beleifs in the Brahma sutras?



3. Vedas DO support and prescribe ritual meat eating, this is a undeniable fact. Vegetarianism was never a must in Vedic religion. One really has to pervert the whole doctrine of Vedas in order to make them promoting vegetarianism.


There must have been a time during Purva Mimasins and the highest goal was stated to be svarga, not moksha. For those who identify themselves with the highest goal of vedas, namely moxa, have no value of himsa yajnas.




4. Vedas, Upanishads and Gita do not prohibit meat eating. Agamas of Shaiva and Shakta traditions do not prohibit it. And many systems of Yoga are based upon this twofold Shruti.
Patanjali as i know also doesn't prohibit meat, at least directly. In texts of Natha-yoga vegetarianism generally is not prescribed either (though it may be prescribed in some texts, especially those of a later period).

Tell me openly. Isn't compassion and love towards all a prerequisite for any spiritual way? If you kill an animal and yet claim such love, it is bogus. If you cant even achieve so much, why make tall statements? Spiritualism is nipped in the bud by resort to himsa. And your citiing Patanjali to your favour is making a mockery of Yoga.

Vedas address both material and spiritual people. Due to the former one, it does not forbid meat eating. Vedas also have many mantras for obtaining siddhis and material desires, but these have no spiritual value - ZERO.

The spiritual people have different requirements to be met. Bhagavatam, for example is very clear about this vegetarianism. If you are animalistic and animal blood does not bother you, you still have some way to go before you can call youself a true seeker of Yoga.

Again I stress this point - Meat eating is not bad as such, and for people who have decided to keep getting born in this world. But, for those are thinking in terms of God and Yoga seriously, there cannot be any progress without this foundation - Ahimsa, which is complete non violence in word and deed. If God has given you the quality called compasion and love, you would not kill except in unavoidable circummstances. If such qualities are absent, you are still a long way from entering the portals of Yoga, atleast the Hindu Yoga. If your "Yoga" is preaching such things, they cannot be passed on as Hinduism.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 08:50 AM
The animal did not ask for the karma right? Would you mind if I drag you and offer as a sacrifice and promise you some good Karma? The goal of all these ****** practices is svarga. Svarga is the highest attainment of Purva MImasa, and has no eternal benefit.

No, U are wrong. The primary goal of these practices is Devata-tripti and not personal benefit. It is because Shruti prescribe animal sacrifices they are to be done, and not because people want to go to heaven!
Purva-mimansa is just a philosophico-ritualistic school, which i have no interest in.
Vedas and Agamas prescribe sacrifices as a needed part of upasana, worship of God. And the attainment of worship of God is Mukti or Sayujya, and not temporary svarga.


After being in svarga for a while, you will be born in this world again due to the bad karma of killing. Buddha rejected the vedas for these foolish rituals. Adi Shankara has completely demolished these practices. Vaishnavas have not denounced Purva MImamsa, but rejected all rituals with mere material benefits.

So for U Vedic cult is "foolish rituals"? :D


Badarayana critized Pancharatra- is the interpretation of Shankara and no one else. The same verses have been used against Shakta by some commentrators.

Shankara had no reason to twist the meaning in this issue, since for him Pancharatra and Shaktism were equally "heretical" (at that period of his life at least). Of course, later Vaishnava exponenets (who exactly U mean?) might have tried to remove any notion of Pancharatra criticism.


Shaktisim finds basis only in puranas(none in shruti), and consequently needed no criticism from a vedantic perspective. Only dsiputed positions are ever contested in vedanta sutras, and Shaktism does not even come close, infact has no shruti in its favour. Similarly, other philosphical positions like Kaumaram, Vainayakam needed no such criticisms because they were never in the contest.(no shruti basis)

This is utterly wrong, since Shaktism has considerable base in Shruti.
See my post in Scriptures section about the canon of Tantrism.

Puranas are of very little importance for Shaktism as well as Itihasas (though there are Shakta-oriented Puranas, which include several Mahapuranas: Brahmanda, Markandeya, Devibhagavata, Kurma).
Shaktism is based purely upon Shruti, primarily Agamic, but also Vedic.

Do not make such statements if U do not know ;)


Please read Mahabaratha and Bhagavatam before venturing to talk about Vaishnavism.

At least some Vaishnava texts (not Tantric, but orthodox) acknowledge animal sacrifice which is enough. I am sure U may find many which prohibit.


That means virtually no one is a Yogi.

As Shiva-sutras put it, "Consciousness is the Self." That Consciousness is accessible to everyone, since it is the very "I AM" Presence.


Hmm, so you are essentially ruling out meat eating except for occasional rituals? That wont be much objectionable. However, a Yogi has no need to perform such rituals. You read my previous post, I have only said dont mix Yoga and meat eating. No problems if ordinary people do that and decide to keep incarnating for ever. If any ritual requires so it does not belong to Yoga and has no spiritual value. They have only as much value as brushing the teeth - purely materialistic value.

This view contradicts Shruti and thus is not generally authorative.

Whether a Yogi can eat meat or not depends on his sampradaya and that's all.


This is a Hindu forum, and hence all Christian Yoga, Muslim Yoga and other Himsa Yogas will be criticized here. Can you trace your own beleifs to vedas? Can you substantiate your beleifs in the Brahma sutras?

I wasn't talking about any other religions. There are various Shaiva and Shakta systems of Yoga which U prefer to ignore — but they do exist.

Vedas, again, do not prescribe vegetarianism. It is U who have to try to trace Ur beliefs to Vedas, since it is U who call the Vedic cult "foolish rituals."

Brahma-sutras is a mula-grantha of Vedanta system only and not of Hinduism in general. All Tantric Yoga systems are based on Agamas: Siddhanta, Raudra, Bhairava and Kaula. For Tantrism the basic sutras are Shiva-sutras, and not Vedanta-sutras.
However there is a Shakta commentary upon Brahma-sutras, Shakti-bhashya.

Tantrism is a part of Hinduism, and this forum is exactly Hindu and NOT Vaishnava. Thus it would be nice to have some respect to other Hindu traditions different from Ur own.


Tell me openly. Isn't compassion and love towards all a prerequisite for any spiritual way? If you kill an animal and yet claim such love, it is bogus. If you cant even achieve so much, why make tall statements? Spiritualism is nipped in the bud by resort to himsa. And your citiing Patanjali to your favour is making a mockery of Yoga.

Love — yes. And to follow Agamic and Vedic prescriptions is a part of bhakti. Bhakti is not only words, but actions as well.
Of course, love to God and human is not the same as compassion to animals and other lower beings. Moreover, krura-bali elevates animal's soul — it is an act of compassion to kill it ritually when and how it is prescribed by Scriptures.


Vedas address both material and spiritual people. Due to the former one, it does not forbid meat eating. Vedas also have many mantras for obtaining siddhis and material desires, but these have no spiritual value - ZERO.
The spiritual people have different requirements to be met. Bhagavatam, for example is very clear about this vegetarianism. If you are animalistic and animal blood does not bother you, you still have some way to go before you can call youself a true seeker of Yoga.

Bhagavatam is not a Yoga grantha and not a Shruti. It is clearly Vaishnava scripture and most probably a later fabrication by Vopadeva.


Again I stress this point - Meat eating is not bad as such, and for people who have decided to keep getting born in this world. But, for those are thinking in terms of God and Yoga seriously, there cannot be any progress without this foundation - Ahimsa, which is complete non violence in word and deed. If God has given you the quality called compasion and love, you would not kill except in unavoidable circummstances. If such qualities are absent, you are still a long way from entering the portals of Yoga, atleast the Hindu Yoga. If your "Yoga" is preaching such things, they cannot be passed on as Hinduism.

Ur idea of ahimsa differes from the teaching of Shruti, that's the problem.

Meat is used in yogic sadhana in Tantric sampradayas as well as in ritual. U may be surprised, but meat was offered to Lord Jaggannatha in Puri till rather recent times — since worship there is purely Agamic.

U may criticise Tantric or Shaiva sampradayas from the point of view of a Vaishnava, that's Ur problem. But U cannot deny the fact that there are Hindu systems of Yoga (which lead to Mukti and not material benefit, of course) which are not vegetarian.

vedic_kings
06 May 2006, 11:50 AM
Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture
By Stephen Knapp



Many times there seems to be some confusion or lack of clarity on whether the Vedic path condones or condemns the eating of meat. Often times I hear Indians and followers of the Vedic path explain that meat eating is all right, that the Vedic shastras do not condemn it. Of course, in this day and age meat eating includes and supports the whole meat industry, which is the systematic slaughter of thousands of animals on a daily basis. But if we actually research the Vedic texts we will find that there are numerous references in the various portions of the Vedic literature which explain in no uncertain terms the karmic dangers of meat-eating and unnecessary animal slaughter. These indicate that meat eating should be given up for one’s spiritual and even material progress. This means that the Vedic conclusions that some people present for meat-eating are not accurate, and that they have never studied their own religious books very thoroughly. This is something that is important to understand, so let us take a look.





VEDIC REFERENCES AGAINST MEAT-EATING AND ANIMAL SLAUGHTER




To start with, the Manu-samhita clearly and logically recommends that, “Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.” (Manu-samhita 5.48-49)

However, it is not simply the person who eats the meat that becomes implicated by eating the dead animal, but also those who assist in the process. “He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as the slayers of the animal. There is no greater sinner than that man who though not worshiping the gods or the ancestors, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.” (Manu-samhita 5.51-52)

As we get further into the Manu-samhita, there are warnings that become increasingly more serious. For example, “If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.” (Manu-samhita 5.37-38)

In this way, the only time to carry out the need to kill animals for consumption is when there is an emergency such as when there simply is nothing else to eat. Otherwise, when there are plenty of grains, vegetables, fruits, etc., to eat, it is only mankind’s lust and selfish desires that motivate one to kill other beings to satisfy one’s tongue by tasting their blood and flesh, or to fatten one’s wallet by making money from participating in the distribution or the cooking of meat. Such violent actions create opposite reactions. For this reason the warnings are given, “He who injures harmless creatures from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness in this life or the next.” (Manu-samhita 5.45)

Nonetheless, there are also benefits that are mentioned that a person can attain simply by not eating the bodies of other creatures: “By subsisting on pure fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics in the forest, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh. Me he [mam sah] will devour in the next world, whose flesh I eat in this life; the wise declare this to be the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ [mam sah].” (Manu-samhita 5.54-55)

“He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. He who does not injure any (creature) attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.” (Manu-samhita 5.46-47)

Also, “By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation.” (Manu-samhita 6.60)

The earlier texts, such as the Rig-veda (10.87.16), also proclaim the need to give up the eating of slaughtered animals. “One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.”

"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."
(Yajur Veda 12.32.90)

There are also references in the Mahabharata that forewarn the activity of eating flesh: “He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next] birth.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)

“The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it--all these are to be considered meat-eaters.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.40)

All of these people will also incur the same karmic reactions for their participation in killing, distributing or eating the flesh of animals, as explained next.
“The sins generated by violence curtail the life of the perpetrator. Therefore, even those who are anxious for their own welfare should abstain from meat-eating.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.33)

“Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world.” (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)
The following verses are from the Tirukural:

How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless,nor can compassion be found in the hearts of those who eat meat.He who feasts on a creature's flesh is like he who wields a weapon.Goodness is never one with the minds of these two. If you ask, "What is kindness and what is unkindness?" It is not-killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous.Life is perpetuated by not eating meat.The jaws of Hell close on those who do.If the world did not purchase and consume meat,no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale.When a man realizes that meat is the butchered fleshof another creature, he will abstain from eating it.Insightful souls who have abandoned the passion to hurt others will not feed on flesh that life has abandoned.Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificialfires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature.All life will press palms together in prayerful adorationof those who refuse to slaughter or savor meat.

vedic_kings
06 May 2006, 11:52 AM
From these verses there should be no doubt that the Vedic shastra recommends that such selfish meat-eating must be given up if one has any concern for other living beings, or one’s own future existence, or for attaining any spiritual merit. In Bhagavad-gita, however, we also find similar verses on what is recommended for human consumption. Lord Krishna says, “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.” (Bg.9.26)

This means that not only should one be a vegetarian and eat only fruits, water, grains, vegetables, etc., but such items should be made as an offering to God with love. The reason is that, “The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.” (Bg.3.13)

So what is offered are only those things that Krishna accepts. That becomes prasada, or remnants of foods offered to the Lord.
As further elaborated in Bhagavad-gita by Lord Sri Krishna: “O son of Kunti, all that you do, all that you eat, all that you offer and give away, as well as all austerities that you may perform, should be done as an offering unto Me. In this way you will be freed from all reactions to good and evil deeds, and by this principle of renunciation you will be liberated and come to Me.” (Bg.9.27)

Herein we can see that the process of preparing and eating food is also a part of the Vedic system for making spiritual advancement. As the Vedic literature explains, what we eat is an important factor in the process of purifying ourselves and remaining free from accumulating bad karma. It actually is not so difficult to be vegetarian, and it gives one a much higher taste in eating and in one’s spiritual realizations. The level of our consciousness is also determined not only by what we think and do, but also by the vibrational level of what we put into our bodies as food. The more natural and peaceful the food, the more healthy and peaceful will be our consciousness. If it is further blessed and offered to the Lord, then it becomes especially powerful and spiritualized. This vibration goes into our own bodies and is assimilated by our consciousness to assist us in our spiritual upliftment. However, if we eat foods that are the remnants of animals that were petrified with fear before being slaughtered, or were tortured during the slaughter process, that fear, aggression and suffering will also become a part of our own consciousness, which is reflected back on our own life and the people with whom we come in contact. And people wonder why there is not more peace in the world.




THE QUESTION OF WHETHER LORD RAMA ATE MEAT IN THE RAMAYANA



Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki’s Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana or Sita ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating meat. The evidence for this is as follows: The verse that comes in question in this regard in the Valmiki Ramayana, Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.”
The literal translation of this verse is: “Sri Rama does not take meat or honey. He partakes everyday of wild fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully sanctioned (for an ascetic) in the evening.”
Faulty English translations have put it as something like this: Hanuman to Sita, “When you were away, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat.” This incorrectly implies that Rama normally may have ate meat but did not do so while Sita was away from Him.
Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte is a verb that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you say Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte”, it gives a complete negative connotation, meaning that Lord Rama abhorred meat-eating. On the other hand, if the words were “Na mamsam Raghavo khadate”, it could then mean that Raghava may have engaged in meat eating before, but had stopped it at this point. However, this is not what is said, but is where some English translations present a similar confusion, or are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by analyzing the correct view of the proper translation, it indicates clearly that the Valmiki Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vegetarianism_recommended_in_Vedic_scripture.htm

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 01:41 PM
Neither Manu-samhita (Manavadharma-shastra), nor Mahabharata is a Vedic text. However the same Manu-smriti clearly says that "there is no sin in meat-eating, alcohol or sexual intersourse" (na mAMsa bhakShaNe doSho na madye na ca maithune).
Given quotations prohibit unlawful animal killing, and a sacrifice is lawful and is not considered to be a killing or violence.
Vedas in numerous places prescribe animal sacrifice and eating of sacrificial meat. Upanishads have references to meat eating, just for example Brihadaranyaka VI.4.18.

I think the theme is completed. Meat eating is allowed in Vedas and Smriti, which is very clear. Some texts (like Manu-smriti) say it is better to abstain from meat, while another say it is better to eat meat (Kaulajnana-nirnaya of Shri Matsyendranatha, Kularnava-tantra etc).
In Vaishnava tradition meat is prohibited, in Shaiva and Shakta — allowed and in Tantrism prescribed (in ritual), as well as in Vedism.

So, what is the problem? Verily vegetarianism is not a rule for every Hindu tradition, but it is a rule for some. Everyone is supposed to follow his sampradaya and not somebody other's. Thus no contradiction is there.

The problem comes only when some narrow-minded people try to say that without being vegetarian no spiritual progress is there — which is contradicting Shruti and Smriti and cannot be accepted.

vedic_kings
07 May 2006, 04:05 PM
So we can kill and attain liberation?

Arjuna
07 May 2006, 04:30 PM
So we can kill and attain liberation?

It depends on several factors, U cannot say without their determining.

Animal killing is prescribed in Vedic and Agamic cults, and thus verily is compatible with Liberation. Also it is acceptible when a need is their, either for food or for protection. In certian cases killing of human beings is lawful and even needed, which is clear from Gita teaching as well as from Smriti.

In any case, every killing (lawful one of course) should be "Devatartha", for the sake of God.

Moreover, Liberation comes only as a result of divine grace (anugraha) or from another point of view as a result of Sajjnana. Never it can be a result of any kind of action, good or bad, and never it can be prevented by an action.

vedic_kings
08 May 2006, 12:53 PM
It depends on several factors, U cannot say without their determining.

Animal killing is prescribed in Vedic and Agamic cults, and thus verily is compatible with Liberation. Also it is acceptible when a need is their, either for food or for protection. In certian cases killing of human beings is lawful and even needed, which is clear from Gita teaching as well as from Smriti.

In any case, every killing (lawful one of course) should be "Devatartha", for the sake of God.

Moreover, Liberation comes only as a result of divine grace (anugraha) or from another point of view as a result of Sajjnana. Never it can be a result of any kind of action, good or bad, and never it can be prevented by an action.
I agree that killing is needed to protect or for food, if no other food is available. And yes Liberation is beyound all actions good or bad (karmas).

So in this case killing will not get you Liberation, as Liberation is the goal of yoga:)

Arjuna
08 May 2006, 02:13 PM
I agree that killing is needed to protect or for food, if no other food is available. And yes Liberation is beyound all actions good or bad (karmas).
So in this case killing will not get you Liberation, as Liberation is the goal of yoga:)

No action can "get Liberation", only God Himself can give it at His Will.

vedic_kings
08 May 2006, 02:18 PM
No action can "get Liberation", only God Himself can give it at His Will.
Yes, and if he has a will, it is based on Dharma:)

Arjuna
08 May 2006, 02:24 PM
Yes, and if he has a will, it is based on Dharma:)

No, His Will is absolutely free, it is His Svatantrya-shakti.
Dharma is based upon God's Will.

vedic_kings
08 May 2006, 02:27 PM
No, His Will is absolutely free, it is His Svatantrya-shakti.
Dharma is based upon God's Will.

Brahman is free of Dharma, but not Ishvara the cosmic Lord (God).

Singhi Kaya
08 May 2006, 02:34 PM
No, His Will is absolutely free, it is His Svatantrya-shakti.
Dharma is based upon God's Will.
God is beyond any will. Dharma is God's nature not will.

Arjuna
08 May 2006, 03:37 PM
Brahman is free of Dharma, but not Ishvara the cosmic Lord (God).

According to Shaiva (and Shakta) Doctrine, GOD (Anuttara, Paramashiva or Parabrahman) is beyond everything and totally free. His Will (Svatantrya) is His creative Consciousness-power, Chiti or Parasamvit.

Ishvara is just His manifestation of Tirobhava-shakti, concealing Power.

Nature of God is pure Consciousness, which is Will, Love, Freedom and Bliss.

Dharma is the Law, given essentially in Shruti. It cannot be the Nature of God, but a manifestation of His Will (and ultimately of His Anugraha-shakti, Grace).

vedic_kings
08 May 2006, 04:35 PM
According to Shaiva (and Shakta) Doctrine, GOD (Anuttara, Paramashiva or Parabrahman) is beyond everything and totally free. His Will (Svatantrya) is His creative Consciousness-power, Chiti or Parasamvit.

Ishvara is just His manifestation of Tirobhava-shakti, concealing Power.

Nature of God is pure Consciousness, which is Will, Love, Freedom and Bliss.

Dharma is the Law, given essentially in Shruti. It cannot be the Nature of God, but a manifestation of His Will (and ultimately of His Anugraha-shakti, Grace).

Hmm.. my knowledge is based on Tattva.

vedic_kings
09 May 2006, 10:37 AM
Meat creates a tamasic kind of tissue that clogs the channels and makes the mind dull. This does not however in some cases mean the spiritual path is cut off or have any effect for a meat eater but thats if they are successful, which is less likely, there is a danger that the meat in the system, which is a crude form of fuel (Ojas), may cause the person to overheat or create a kind of smoke that distorts any higher experiences.

Arjuna
09 May 2006, 11:54 AM
Hmm.. my knowledge is based on Tattva.

What do U mean by "Tattva" in this case?

What U have said seems to be a view of Shakara's Vedanta. I hold to Shaiva-darshana, which is quite different. Shiva (GOD) is both transcendent and immanent, nirakara and sakara, Brahman and Shakti. His five Powers are Chit, Ananda, Ichchha, Jnani, Kriya.

According to Shaiva Doctrine, God is totally free, self-aware and omnipotent. He is Anuttara, beyond Whom is none, Shiva (Prakasha) and Shakti (Vimarsha) in perfect union of Samarasya.

Arjuna
09 May 2006, 11:56 AM
Meat creates a tamasic kind of tissue that clogs the channels and makes the mind dull. This does not however in some cases mean the spiritual path is cut off or have any effect for a meat eater but thats if they are successful, which is less likely, there is a danger that the meat in the system, which is a crude form of fuel (Ojas), may cause the person to overheat or create a kind of smoke that distorts any higher experiences.

1. This is not so for a Shaiva-yogi (or Kaula-yogi), for whom meat is Shiva-tattva and wine is Shakti-tattva, according to Kularnava statement.
For Kaula meat doesn't make any harm, as he is Bhairava himself.

2. In fact a diet may matter only in a case of kaya-sadhana (any yoga system which deals with transformation of gross body into “body of light”). For Jnana-yoga there is no difference what food one eats. As Chandogya Upanishad says, everything may be one’s food, even food of dogs and birds. Same is the case for Bhakti, is which every food is offered to Paradevata and taken as prasadam.
Thus all this stuff of meat is very doubtful; the idea that any food affects consciousness cannot be accepted, since this will be pure materialism (carvaka-vada), and thus a heresy and delusion. Food may affect mind; but Atman is beyond mind and independent from it.

vedic_kings
09 May 2006, 07:01 PM
So are you saying you don't believe in Brahman?

willie
09 May 2006, 10:01 PM
Meat , because of the animal might put more plaque in the arteries . If those arteries are going to the brain then blood flow might be restricted and cause the person to not be as mentally aware.

This whole vegtable thing is being blown out of shape. Mostly people are a varitey of things and , hopefully, a balanced diet in the process.

vedic_kings
09 May 2006, 11:12 PM
Meat , because of the animal might put more plaque in the arteries . If those arteries are going to the brain then blood flow might be restricted and cause the person to not be as mentally aware.

This whole vegtable thing is being blown out of shape. Mostly people are a varitey of things and , hopefully, a balanced diet in the process.

Yes a balance diet is a must! but doesn't mean meat is a part of the diet:)

Diet is very important for health, and health is very important for the spiritual life. like the breath. Our body, mind and soul exist because of prana, so we need to eat that of prana. Meat is dead, which means the prana has left the animals body.

vedic_kings
09 May 2006, 11:42 PM
Thus all this stuff of meat is very doubtful; the idea that any food affects consciousness cannot be accepted, since this will be pure materialism (carvaka-vada), and thus a heresy and delusion. Food may affect mind; but Atman is beyond mind and independent from it.
yes, and we experiences the body and mind and what we in put into it and around it. The Self is not the body or mind agreed. But everything effects the body and mind as they are under the power of time. Raja yoga is Jnana, Bhakti, Kriya, and Karma yoga combined. Ahimsa in the first principle or the Dharmic foundation of Raja yoga.

Raja yoga is said to be the king of yogas.

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 03:46 AM
So are you saying you don't believe in Brahman?

Brahman is not a matter of belief, but the very Truth itself.

Shaivism understands Parabrahman as Pure Consciousness and Total embodiment of all power, thus at the same time static Prakasha and dynamic Vimarsha (which are essentially One).
If we take Vedantic definition of Brahman as the transcendent Reality, then He is identic to Prakasha aspect of the Godhead, Anuttara. And His power of self-awareness, Vimarsha, is Parashakti.

svAtantryadarshinastvAbhAse hetuM punarmaheshasya.
paramaM yatsvAtantryaM shaktighanatvaM tadeva manyanye..
On the other hand, the seers of the principle of self-dependence believe that it is Maheshvara’s being an embodiment of all power, that is, His being the supreme self-dependent reality, which is the basic cause of such imaginary appearances.
(Svatantrya-darpana of B. N. Pandit, 8.11)

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 03:55 AM
Yes a balance diet is a must! but doesn't mean meat is a part of the diet:)
Diet is very important for health, and health is very important for the spiritual life. like the breath. Our body, mind and soul exist because of prana, so we need to eat that of prana. Meat is dead, which means the prana has left the animals body.

Regarding prana it is most probably inaccurate. It is "soul" which leaves body upon death and not prana (in a sense of energy). After death some functions are still going on, like hair- and nail-growth. For some time, prana is still there.

For health certain animal or fish products are essential, preferably fish and sea-food — or as minimum eggs. Usually people who stick to veg viet spoil their health (especially when genetically they aren't accustomed to veg-only food).

But, again, health and diet are totally separate from Yoga per se, which is the knowledge of Atman.

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 04:08 AM
yes, and we experiences the body and mind and what we in put into it and around it. The Self is not the body or mind agreed. But everything effects the body and mind as they are under the power of time. Raja yoga is Jnana, Bhakti, Kriya, and Karma yoga combined. Ahimsa in the first principle or the Dharmic foundation of Raja yoga.
Raja yoga is said to be the king of yogas.

I don't know where U took this definition of Raja-yoga from :). I heard this kind of idea from people, but what is its foundation apart from common belief?

The earliest meaning of Raja-yoga was very different from this, being a specific Tantric practice in a course of Vamachara-sadhana. Then it came to be identified by some with Patanjali's ashtanga — which is a path of meditation aimed at Kaivalya (Atma-vyapti of Shaivism). But it isn't the highest Path, since it doesn't lead to Shiva-vyapti, realisation of God.

Ahimsa is understood differently in different traditions. This was already discussed, and i have no wish to repeat the whole stuff again.

Logically, any food affects only mind-body mechanism, while Atman is a Sakshi of it. Atma-jnana is not dependent upon a diet of any kind.

orlando
10 May 2006, 04:31 AM
For health certain animal or fish products are essential, preferably fish and sea-food — or as minimum eggs. Usually people who stick to veg viet spoil their health (especially when genetically they aren't accustomed to veg-only food)

The only essential animal product for an human being is the milk.
Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 05:11 AM
The only essential animal product for an human being is the milk.

Medical science holds a different view.

I have a friend, a physician from Austria, who is a disciple of Mahavatari Baba. This guy, a physician, is a vegetarian — but he eats eggs, since that is a health necessary minimum. Milk is not enough.

orlando
10 May 2006, 05:20 AM
Well,Gaudiya-vaishnavas and Sri Vaishnavas don't eat eggs.
I still eat eggs and food made of egg because I don't what to eat instead of these foods.One day I will buy a good lacto-vegetarian book and I will try t leave eggs.
Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 05:59 AM
Well, Gaudiya-vaishnavas and Sri Vaishnavas don't eat eggs.

Yes i know. But this is a prescription of their sampradaya and not of Hinduism in general or Vedic religion.

And in any case, health matter is different. If some tradition teaches to abstain from a product necessary to body sustenance, it doesn't make this abstinence good for health.

Singhi Kaya
10 May 2006, 05:59 AM
Regarding prana it is most probably inaccurate. It is "soul" which leaves body upon death and not prana (in a sense of energy). After death some functions are still going on, like hair- and nail-growth. For some time, prana is still there.

Though this technicalities hardly matter unless one wnats to be yoga expert or occutist but think your view is not correct. firstly soul leaves the body is a wrong idea as sol doesnt stay in the body~body exits on soul, not the revers. Just the pranamaya kosha or pranic body is said to be be slightly bigger than body. Manomaya Kosha or mind is way way bigger than the body~soul is infinite :). But I think your statement was a linguistic misplacement as I am sure every one following a hindu path knows this.

Death indeed is caused by prana vahu leaving the body. Body has 5 principle vayu's. When prana vayu which is active above the navel leaves the body, one immediately dies. Prana vayu is the engine and when it leaves the body, the rest decays in an exponential curve, but not suddenly.

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 06:14 AM
But I think your statement was a linguistic misplacement as I am sure every one following a hindu path knows this.
Death indeed is caused by prana vahu leaving the body. Body has 5 principle vayu's. When prana vayu which is active above the navel leaves the body, one immediately dies. Prana vayu is the engine and when it leaves the body, the rest decays in an exponential curve, but not suddenly.

I have specially put the word "soul" in inverted commas, don't take this as a technical expression :)

Regarding prana that's arguable matter, but really not important in this issue.
In Hindu occultism, for example, it is considered that prana stays for 6 hours in hairs or nails after they are cut.

vedic_kings
10 May 2006, 11:14 AM
The main method for working on Prana is Pranayama or Yogic breathing exercises. Yoga emphasizes purification of the body (deha suddhi) and purification of the mind (citta suddhi) as the means to Self-realization. For this reason Yoga emphasizes a vegetarian diet rich in Prana or foods full of the life-force and a mind rooted in ethical values like truthfulness and nonviolence. An impure, toxic or disturbed body and mind cannot realize the higher Self. However the key to purifying body and mind is prana. For this purpose the main method is purification of the nadis or channels through which Prana flows (Nadi-sodhana).

Arjuna
10 May 2006, 05:00 PM
The main method for working on Prana is Pranayama or Yogic breathing exercises. Yoga emphasizes purification of the body (deha suddhi) and purification of the mind (citta suddhi) as the means to Self-realization. For this reason Yoga emphasizes a vegetarian diet rich in Prana or foods full of the life-force and a mind rooted in ethical values like truthfulness and nonviolence. An impure, toxic or disturbed body and mind cannot realize the higher Self. However the key to purifying body and mind is prana. For this purpose the main method is purification of the nadis or channels through which Prana flows (Nadi-sodhana).

This is right ONLY for some Yoga systems. Those who follow these, have to follow such rules and regulations.

In other Yoga systems rules differ.

And once again, one may realise the Self in ANY condition and any body, since the Self is the very I-AM Consciousness which is ever Present and ever accessible. For such realisation no practice is required, one may realise it in a moment, spontaneously (as a result of Atitivrashaktipata).

vedic_kings
10 May 2006, 05:26 PM
This is right ONLY for some Yoga systems. Those who follow these, have to follow such rules and regulations.

In other Yoga systems rules differ.

And once again, one may realise the Self in ANY condition and any body, since the Self is the very I-AM Consciousness which is ever Present and ever accessible. For such realisation no practice is required, one may realise it in a moment, spontaneously (as a result of Atitivrashaktipata).

Yes this is very true.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
10 May 2006, 08:05 PM
For health certain animal or fish products are essential, preferably fish and sea-food — or as minimum eggs. Usually people who stick to veg viet spoil their health (especially when genetically they aren't accustomed to veg-only food).


Nonsense. I've been a vegetarian for three years and my health actually improved dramatically. I'd like to see evidence that fish is "essential" for health. Same with eggs. You do realize that most Indians are vegetarian. Notice the difference in weight and waist size between those in India and those in America and tell me which diet is healthier. ~BYS~

Jade Bridge
10 May 2006, 08:44 PM
Nonsense. I've been a vegetarian for three years and my health actually improved dramatically. I'd like to see evidence that fish is "essential" for health. Same with eggs. You do realize that most Indians are vegetarian. Notice the difference in weight and waist size between those in India and those in America and tell me which diet is healthier. ~BYS~

Hello,

I think the person may be referring to Omega 3, which is primarily derived from fish (salmon, especially) and eggs. Omega 6 on the other hand, which is mainly derived from red meat, is not good for you. While I do agree that a vegetarian lifestyle is healthier, I wouldn't necessary equate that with waist size. I have been a vegetarian for 20 years, yet I constantly have to battle against a bulging waistline...of course if I could just learn how to avoid sweets I might have a fighting chance..ha ha...my point being, you can't necessarily make sweeping generalizations like that. On the whole, the Japanese have the highest longevity rate, and they are big fish eaters, so... :cool: take it for what it's worth...

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 03:24 AM
Nonsense. I've been a vegetarian for three years and my health actually improved dramatically. I'd like to see evidence that fish is "essential" for health. Same with eggs. You do realize that most Indians are vegetarian. Notice the difference in weight and waist size between those in India and those in America and tell me which diet is healthier. ~BYS~

Most of americans keep very unhealthy diet, that is a problem and not non-vegetarianism itself.
See peoples of South Asia, Korea and Japan — they eat much sea-food and have very good health and live long.

Indian cusine is not very healthy. In North it has too much oil-fried and sweet, which are very unhealthy. I have been to India several times and know how many fat and heavy vegetarians are there!

Problem is BALANCE in food first of all. But in pure veg food some needed components are lacking. Indians got adjusted to that for many generations — so for them less harm in veg diet is there.

For "what is essential for health" there is a medical science to study.

satay
11 May 2006, 01:56 PM
Most of americans keep very unhealthy diet, that is a problem and not non-vegetarianism itself.
See peoples of South Asia, Korea and Japan — they eat much sea-food and have very good health and live long.


I have to agree with this. I have seen people from the asia specifically filipino background that are very healthy look younger than their actual age etc. I think this is due to the high sea food in their diet.




Indian cusine is not very healthy. In North it has too much oil-fried and sweet, which are very unhealthy. I have been to India several times and know how many fat and heavy vegetarians are there!

As a north indian, I agree with this too! All foods even dal has to have 'tarka' to be tasty otherwise I won't eat it and neither will anyother punjabi!



Indians got adjusted to that for many generations — so for them less harm in veg diet is there.

I don't about this for sure...

Having said all this though my vote goes to veg diet as I have been a meat eater most of my life but since I became a vegetarian...my health has become better this could be due the fact that I don't stop by fast food restaurants any more and choose to cook my own food...though I still eat "junk" and if no attention is paid I suspect that the waistline will get wider!!

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 02:16 PM
This is right ONLY for some Yoga systems. Those who follow these, have to follow such rules and regulations.

In other Yoga systems rules differ.

And once again, one may realise the Self in ANY condition and any body, since the Self is the very I-AM Consciousness which is ever Present and ever accessible. For such realisation no practice is required, one may realise it in a moment, spontaneously (as a result of Atitivrashaktipata).

Namaste Arjuna...I dont know what you think, but I wont be able to eat meat because I would be "killing" Shiva inside it - I cant. As you know, Shiva resides insides every being and as the the indweller.

So, as long as I dont see the Shivam inside the animal, I cant kill out of compassion and respect for the Lord. When I see the Lord in there when jnanam occurs, I wont need to eat to survive anymore - such Yogis dont need physical food to survive. In either case, meat is out of the blocks.

anewa
11 May 2006, 02:52 PM
Namaste Arjuna...I dont know what you think, but I wont be able to eat meat because I would be "killing" Shiva inside it - I cant. As you know, Shiva resides insides every being and as the the indweller.

So, as long as I dont see the Shivam inside the animal, I cant kill out of compassion and respect for the Lord. When I see the Lord in there when jnanam occurs, I wont need to eat to survive anymore - such Yogis dont need physical food to survive. In either case, meat is out of the blocks.

:thumbsup:

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 04:41 PM
Namaste Arjuna...I dont know what you think, but I wont be able to eat meat because I would be "killing" Shiva inside it - I cant. As you know, Shiva resides insides every being and as the the indweller.

U don't have to! ;)

Just for a note, Tantrikas eat meat exactly because they see Shiva there! That is a Shiva-tattva bhoga.
As Kularnava puts it, tadbhoktA bhairavassvayaM — "one who enjoyes these (meat and wine) is Bhairava himself." These two have also two secret meanings: one refers to Vama ritual and another to pure Consciousness.

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 06:08 PM
U don't have to! ;)

Just for a note, Tantrikas eat meat exactly because they see Shiva there! That is a Shiva-tattva bhoga.
As Kularnava puts it, tadbhoktA bhairavassvayaM — "one who enjoyes these (meat and wine) is Bhairava himself." These two have also two secret meanings: one refers to Vama ritual and another to pure Consciousness.

But siddhi has to be ignored to make progress in Yoga. The Bliss from Yoga is a purely inward one as in shushupti - I fail to see how it is related to eating meat or anything external for that matter.

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 06:28 PM
But siddhi has to be ignored to make progress in Yoga. The Bliss from Yoga is a purely inward one as in shushupti - I fail to see how it is related to eating meat or anything external for that matter.

Categories of inward vs outward are existing for a bound being and not for a Yogi, who sees everything as Consciousness.
And the Bliss of Yoga verily is NOT same as sushupti state — Shaiva-yoga leads to Turiya and Turyatita levels beyond three states of mind.

Siddhi may or may not be ignored, this doesn't matter much. Essential is Sajjnana and Prema.

sarabhanga
11 May 2006, 07:29 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Killing animals and eating their flesh may be sanctioned in certain ritual circumstances ~ but the meat must be obtained from ritually sacrificed animals, and not from the common butcher or supermarket! In which case, I wonder where western Kaulas would obtain such ritually acceptable meat? There are Halal butchers for Muslims, but that meat would be Halahal (poison) for Hindus! In India it is possible to obtain correctly sacrificed meat for ritual consumption, but I have not heard of such services available for Hindus in western countries. So (as a Kaula) do you kill your own animals? And if not, where does the meat come from?

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 07:36 PM
Categories of inward vs outward are existing for a bound being and not for a Yogi, who sees everything as Consciousness.
And the Bliss of Yoga verily is NOT same as sushupti state — Shaiva-yoga leads to Turiya and Turyatita levels beyond three states of mind.

Siddhi may or may not be ignored, this doesn't matter much. Essential is Sajjnana and Prema.

I am not sure about your siddhi part. Except for the perfected Yogi, using siddhis are going to be a problem. The life of Vishvwmitra should be a pointer in this direction. He performed tapasya so many times, and every time he either used his siddhi or fell prey to his senses, he had to start from scratch. I have begun to anticipate your characteristic response - My Yoga is superior, here you can enjoy both worldly pleasures and heavenly pleasures. Siddhis as a rule are to completely ignored as it is a route to downfall. In Bhagavad Gita, the Lord clearly makes out that renunciation or tyAga is the highest virtue: you need to sacrififice everything - all your desires, siddhis etc as a Yogi.



If everything is seen as consciosuness, why eat meat in specific? The Yogi full of bliss will not need to seek any bliss from eating or any other activity.

Permanent Turiya happens only in videha mukti. Otherwise, the jivan mukta cannot even function or teach others.

Moreover, multiplicity exists in Pranjana as Brahma Sutras tell us in the phala adhyaya by ruling out lordly power for the jivan mukta. Jivan mukta's usual realm of existance is only the extreme shushupti. It is only due to this that the Yogi is unable to break free of prarabdha karma and sometimes even dies through diseases etc.

I am not sure about Shaiva Yoga, but vedantic position rules out permanent Turiya for the jivan mukta and he is distinct from Isvara( and part of Isvara), though he enjoys identical bliss as Isvara.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
11 May 2006, 08:41 PM
Most meat-eaters have little to no objections to consuming meat. However, if most meat eaters were required to kill the animal themselves, butcher and prepare the meat, and then eat it instead of simply picking it up at the store, they would think twice before consuming meat. If you wouldn't kill the animal yourself yet have no problem eating it when someone else has killed it, that is quite hypocritical. ~BYS~

willie
11 May 2006, 10:01 PM
Sure killing animals is brutal. Perhaps the best thing would be to hunt wild aanimals ,but with the current population that would not be possible. Too many people and not enough land or animals to go around. But in the hunting theme some animals would live while others would be killed and it would be better than a trip to he packing plant , where no animal gets out alive.

satay
12 May 2006, 12:47 AM
Most meat-eaters have little to no objections to consuming meat. However, if most meat eaters were required to kill the animal themselves, butcher and prepare the meat, and then eat it instead of simply picking it up at the store, they would think twice before consuming meat. If you wouldn't kill the animal yourself yet have no problem eating it when someone else has killed it, that is quite hypocritical. ~BYS~

yes, this is very true. Often if you remind the meat eaters about how the animal was slaughter for their sense pleasure they will not enjoy their dead meat meal anylonger. ;)
Obviously, unless one is some sort of hill-billy one is not going to actually hunt and kill his supper eh?

I know that buddhists that eat meat do so based on the idea that the animal was not killed by them so they are not accumulating any bad karma by eating the dead meat...funny logic

Anyway, matar paneer tastes much better than dead meat.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:03 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
Killing animals and eating their flesh may be sanctioned in certain ritual circumstances ~ but the meat must be obtained from ritually sacrificed animals, and not from the common butcher or supermarket! In which case, I wonder where western Kaulas would obtain such ritually acceptable meat? There are Halal butchers for Muslims, but that meat would be Halahal (poison) for Hindus! In India it is possible to obtain correctly sacrificed meat for ritual consumption, but I have not heard of such services available for Hindus in western countries. So (as a Kaula) do you kill your own animals? And if not, where does the meat come from?

Namaste Sarabhanga,

While described prescription is verily given in Smriti (and i assume Siddhantagamas as well), it is absent from Kaulagamas. Whatever is taken by a Vira is pure, he is free of any food restrictions.

Moreover,
“Abhinavagupta, in the course of discussing one of the basic principles of Kaula doctrine, namely, that purity and impurity is not an inherent quality of things but a mental projection which must be overcome along with all other thought-constructs to achieve the pure conscious state of liberation says that: ‘such was also (the insight of) the ancient sages (muni) by virtue of their state free of thought-constructs but who, in order not to disrupt the order of the world, concealed it.’ (Tantraloka, IV. 243b-4a).”
(M. Dyczkowsky in “The Canon of the Saivagama,” p. 140).

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:08 AM
Most meat-eaters have little to no objections to consuming meat. However, if most meat eaters were required to kill the animal themselves, butcher and prepare the meat, and then eat it instead of simply picking it up at the store, they would think twice before consuming meat. If you wouldn't kill the animal yourself yet have no problem eating it when someone else has killed it, that is quite hypocritical. ~BYS~

That would be the best case, since then all meat will be sacrificial! In Vedic times that was the situation, meat was eaten from Yajnas.

But in modern life style that isn't possible (at least in towns). In any case, if one feels a problem to eat meat from market, he may keep away from it, since Shastras never insist meat is necessary. The only exception is ritual usage of meat in Vedic and Tantric cult, which is occasional — and applicable only to adhikaris.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:30 AM
I am not sure about your siddhi part. Except for the perfected Yogi, using siddhis are going to be a problem. The life of Vishvwmitra should be a pointer in this direction. He performed tapasya so many times, and every time he either used his siddhi or fell prey to his senses, he had to start from scratch. I have begun to anticipate your characteristic response - My Yoga is superior, here you can enjoy both worldly pleasures and heavenly pleasures. Siddhis as a rule are to completely ignored as it is a route to downfall. In Bhagavad Gita, the Lord clearly makes out that renunciation or tyAga is the highest virtue: you need to sacrififice everything - all your desires, siddhis etc as a Yogi.

As Shri Aurobindo one said, "My Beloved gifted me with ornaments, but people scream, 'he is striving for siddhis!'" ;)
The problem is one's attitude and intention, and not siddhi by itself.

Do not think however, that i promote occultism. I DO NOT.
In Tantric Shaivism siddhis are powers of Consiouness and not some kind of occult capacities or magical tricks.


If everything is seen as consciosuness, why eat meat in specific? The Yogi full of bliss will not need to seek any bliss from eating or any other activity.

A Siddha-yogi simply enjoy what naturally comes, it may be meat or may not.
A Yogi who is still in a process of Sadhana, follows prescriptions of Amnaya. If he is a Kaula-yogi, he follows Kaula method.


Permanent Turiya happens only in videha mukti. Otherwise, the jivan mukta cannot even function or teach others.

This may be Ur idea, but not the doctrine of Agamas (i assume even not of Vedanta). Jivanmukta is in permanent Turiya or Sahaja-samadhi, and experiences continuous Lokananda state.
In sushupti one cannot act or perceive even.


I am not sure about Shaiva Yoga, but vedantic position rules out permanent Turiya for the jivan mukta and he is distinct from Isvara( and part of Isvara), though he enjoys identical bliss as Isvara.

I have conveyed the view of Shaiva-mata. And which Vedanta U speak about? I wonder what is the position of Shankara's tradition in this issue. It is hard to believe that it can teach that jivanmukta lives in sushupti and not Turiya.

TruthSeeker
12 May 2006, 05:44 AM
yes, this is very true. Often if you remind the meat eaters about how the animal was slaughter for their sense pleasure they will not enjoy their dead meat meal anylonger. ;)
Obviously, unless one is some sort of hill-billy one is not going to actually hunt and kill his supper eh?

I know that buddhists that eat meat do so based on the idea that the animal was not killed by them so they are not accumulating any bad karma by eating the dead meat...funny logic

Anyway, matar paneer tastes much better than dead meat.

I think it is quite allright to eat meat of an animal that died naturally in that case. There is the story of a fowler in the Mahabaratha which beautifully explains this - and how he never accumulates bad karma in the process. For eg, killing animal cannot be sinful for a butcher, because that is his profession. That does not mean one has to become a butcher though, if he is born with spiritual wisdom.

There is a story that is usually related to show how various activities are sinful to various people. Four men, a Brahmin, a kshatriya, a vaishiya and a shudra are brought before a king for the charge of murder. The shudra is given 8 years sentance, the vaishiya is given 16 years, the kshatriya 32 years, and the Brahmin life in prison. The king is asked to justify the validity of the unfairness of the judgement, and he replies thus:

"The shudra has committed a murder but he does not know the implications it has on his spiritual growth and also is not educated in the shastras, and hence his guilt count is less. Vaishiya is similarly less guilty that others. Kshatriya is supposed to protect other people, and his crime is very serious. The Brahmin is supposed to instruct others to refrain from killing, and is also well versed in the shastras, so he ought to be hanged. However he is not hanged since it will involve brahma-hatya dosha and just given spared of that punishment."

Meat eating ought to be viewed from this angle. If your religion preaches it, this act is less sinful. If your religion forbids it, you have been taught the evils of this practice and you should know better to avoid. All eating for that matter is sinful, whether it be plant or animal. That is why we make an offering to God before eating. Plant eating is considered to involve less karma than animal eating and hence prefered. A lesser evil can be preferred since we have no choice. Abstaining from plant food is impossible so you are forced to do that.

TruthSeeker
12 May 2006, 06:24 AM
I have conveyed the view of Shaiva-mata. And which Vedanta U speak about? I wonder what is the position of Shankara's tradition in this issue. It is hard to believe that it can teach that jivanmukta lives in sushupti and not Turiya.

Turiya is an undivided state, and hence according to advaita, it should be impossible. If you consider the world to be a snake, but know it to be the rope in Turiya you can no longer percieve the world.

By the way, jivan mukti is not the highest state of jnana yoga. There are two steps beyond it, Padarta Bhavana and Turiyatita. The Padarta Bhavana is normally the highest stage of mukti possible for a Yogi who still has a body, which is not full Turiya. Turiatita is possible only in videha. I know Siddha traditions dont have have the concept of videha mukti..

But vedantic position is clear. Jivanmukta cannot cross over to Turiya permanently. Nor can he inherit the cosmic powers of Isvara, and nor can he overcome the effects of prarabdha. He might temporarily exist in Turiya in samadhi but has to come out it to deal with the world, probably down to the Jagrat. If you have an "I" you are not in Turiya anymore, and how will he deal with the world? What was the state of Lord Krishna when he was talking to Arjuna? It would be impossible to imagine that Krishna was talking to an unreal entity when viewed from his stand point. Thus, avataras or jivanmuktas would have to be in vyavaharika only, where the highest in Pranjna only.


Turiya is Nirguna Brahma, and it is pointless to associate any moving body with it. Was Adi Shankara in the state of Turiya when he composed the Brahma sutra bhasyas? That would be incompatible with advaita, though it is often claimed to be. You are bound to get different answers from even different advaitins in this regard. For eg, Shri Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna are known to have distinct difference of views. Classical advaitins dont seem to have accepted the possibility to realizing the undivided Turiya permanently, and there maybe difference of opinions.

If you ask Ramana about the difference between jivan mukti and videha mukti, his answer would typically be "who was in bondage and who was liberated!". He will flatly refuse all these concepts in toto. He was always talking from the paramartika standpoint, which is a little difficult to grasp.

If you ask Ramakrishna, the answer will be different, and Ramakrishna's views have a strong theistic element in them, and he frequently refers to be in Turiya at times and in lower at other times to be able to communicate with the world.

My guess is that we may have many different sub states within Pranjna and perhaps even in Turiya, for all these views to be reconciled.( if at all they need to be reconciled)

Your own views are likely to differ from advaitins if you do not accept Mayavada and Ajativada.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 10:31 AM
My views are those of Tantric Shaivism (and Shaktism).

However, i would like to hear a commentary from Sarabhanga, as he knows Vedantic doctrines deeply. I am not sure Ur understanding of Vedanta is a standard one (i may be wrong, i am not an expert in Vedantic schools).

TruthSeeker
12 May 2006, 03:29 PM
My views are those of Tantric Shaivism (and Shaktism).

However, i would like to hear a commentary from Sarabhanga, as he knows Vedantic doctrines deeply. I am not sure Ur understanding of Vedanta is a standard one (i may be wrong, i am not an expert in Vedantic schools).

Standard one meaning Sri Shankara's? But Shankara advaita itself cannot be said to be a fixed standard, it has many flavours, bhamati and vivarana schools being the main. There are other forms of advaita which are based on vedanta. Thus, is very hard to even define an advaitin, and naturally there will be contradictions.

Also Neo advaita has significant differences from the classical one, though it is less robust in logic. Many advaitins follow the advaita of Swami Vivekananda, which is somewhat different from Shankara. Sri Ramakrishna's advaita is a devout movement. You are not likely to hear the same views on advaita from two different people, unless they belong to one of the well defined schools of bhamati or vivarana. Some schools of advaita combine the concepts in bhamati and vivarana and some of them follow neither but trace their beleifs directly to Shankara.

I would place myself closer to vivarana. While the goal of classical advaitins is to reject non advaitin systems, I have not been a fan of this. I note considerable similarities between advaita and non advaita systems (especially VA) at the metaphysical levels, and hence differ somewhat from traditional advaitins. Also, I have interest in relating advaita with ashtanga Yoga and other traditional systems.

The ultimate goal of advaita is reconciling the upanishadic dictum of One changeless brahman with the evidence of the senses, which imply a mani-fold universe full of change. This is not quite easy or intutive, and hence so many different schools arose.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 03:46 PM
Namaste TS,

I think Kashmiri Tantric monism will be interesting for U ;)

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
12 May 2006, 06:39 PM
Nobody seems to have understood what I said in my post. I said nothing about hunting and I never suggested that people should kill the anmials themselves instead of buying them in the market. I also mentioned nothing about what works in modern life.

What was stated was that it would be hypocritical for a meat-eater to refuse to kill the animal themselves. In other words, someone who has been eating meat his whole life should not have a problem taking a "field trip" to a local slaughterhouse, visit the kill floor, and walk down the line with the blade slashing the throats of several animals. I am not suggesting that people go out of their way to kill the animals. I'm just saying that people should be consistent. If a person has no problems paying a hired mercenary to get rid of someone they don't like, but would have moral objections to taking them out themselves, that is hypocritical. Same with eating meat. I wouldn't walk up to a chicken and rip off its head. I also don't eat chicken. I would be willing to bet that most meat-eaters aren't consistent with these morals. ~BYS~

sarabhanga
13 May 2006, 12:05 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

The beginning of ALL Yoga is Yama; and the first word of Yama is Ahimsa!

In truth, ALL Yoga has eight limbs, and the Natha Siddha’s six-limbed Yoga neglects Yama-Niyama because it was intended for transmission ONLY to aspirants who were already well versed in those foundational elements.

The Hatha Yogin is supposed to be so well established in Yama that there is no need to consider the possibility of straying from the basic principles of Yama (which are common to all humanity).

The ONLY true Avadhuta is Shri Dattatreya, whose mythology began with the Markandeya Purana’s account of the Muni, who was so pure that even Dharma and Adharma were transcended by his perfect Yoga.

Dasanami Nagas are first initiated as “Avadhuta”, but no such Avadhuta who has not completely discarded his mortal body can ever claim such ultimate perfection! And even a fully initiated Naga would not dare to eat meat or drink alcohol or have any intimate contact with women (at least, not without risking the strongest censure from his own Gurus).

The Vira Kaula is a veritable Aghori, who ultimately rejects all consideration of Dharma as an expression of his supreme renunciation (and perhaps also to annoy others, for the doubtful purpose of attracting blame).

In a discussion of Dharma, any doctrine that is “beyond Dharma” is bound to disagree with conventional understandings.

The Vira Kaula is excepted from EVERYTHING, and there seems to be little point in repeatedly noting that things are different for Kaulas.

Can we not merely assume that whenever Dharma prescribes or proscribes anything, that rule will not actually apply to Vira Kaulas?

sarabhanga
13 May 2006, 03:08 AM
Namaste,

“This [universe is] manifold neither owing to the nature of Atman, nor somehow owing to its own [nature] even; nothing whatever [is] separate or non-separate ~ this the knowers of reality know.”

“By the sages void of attachment, fear and anger, who have completely mastered [lit. gone to the other shore of] the Vedas, is seen this cessation of Prapanca, free from imagined attributes [and] non-dual.”

Sages free from passion, fear, and anger, well versed in the Vedic lore, realize the Atman as non-dual, auspicious, free from all distinction and from Samsara.

“Therefore, having known this [Atman] thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality; having secured [or, realized] non-duality, one should carry on the worldly activities like an insensate one.”

Having realized the Advaita in this way, the sage should take care that he does not fall from that state, until the body is finally discarded.

One who has realized the Atman in this way has no use for prayers to Deities or sacrificial offerings to Fathers; he is beyond all Vidhi or Nishedha rules, he stays or wanders at will and goes on with his daily avocations like an automaton ~ and verily, he is Avadhuta.

Arjuna
13 May 2006, 05:28 AM
The Vira Kaula is a veritable Aghori, who ultimately rejects all consideration of Dharma as an expression of his supreme renunciation (and perhaps also to annoy others, for the doubtful purpose of attracting blame).
In a discussion of Dharma, any doctrine that is “beyond Dharma” is bound to disagree with conventional understandings.
The Vira Kaula is excepted from EVERYTHING, and there seems to be little point in repeatedly noting that things are different for Kaulas.
Can we not merely assume that whenever Dharma prescribes or proscribes anything, that rule will not actually apply to Vira Kaulas?

Namaste Sarabhanga,

YES, such is the position of all Atimarga-shaiva cults, including even Shrividya. U are right.

TruthSeeker
13 May 2006, 05:46 AM
Namaste TS,

I think Kashmiri Tantric monism will be interesting for U ;)

Possible. ;)

But I am an ardent beleiver of systems based on Yama and Niyama, and dont like to see it diluted. And I have no particular preference to Shaivite or Vaishnavite monism - that is meaningless from the perspective of advaita.

In short, any system of Yoga not based on ahimsa and brahmacharya are automatically to be rejected according to my beleifs. I wonder why you are always talking of "transcending Dharma" while the only way to transend Dharma is to follow Dharma. Advaita says that use the vyavahArika properly to transcend it, and never dismiss vyavahArika at the outset. That would be suicidal. Your spiritual progress will only be as Vishva, Taijasa, Pranjna and Turiya, but you are always talking about Turiya state. You cant get there without transcending the three states of Isvara, where Dharma has to be followed sincerely.

If a system skips Yama and Niyama, as Sarabhangaji pointed out, it is intended for people who are already establsihed in them, and not to be taken as a free license. Even with rigid moral codes, it is so tempting for a Yogi to go astray until the final liberation. A small slip could be open the door to many future incarnations. So, the risk is much higher in Yoga systems that violate Yama and Niyama.

If you cant control your desires and practice a conventional form of Yoga, it is a lot better to involve oneself as a grihasta and concentrate on devotion and karma. Anyway, that is my opinion. That is what Sri Shankara said too.

Arjuna
13 May 2006, 10:39 AM
Possible. ;)
And I have no particular preference to Shaivite or Vaishnavite monism - that is meaningless from the perspective of advaita.

Namaste,

Paradvaita is not restricted to Shaivism, but it is became prominent especially among Shaivas. Thus Abhinavagupta states that supreme Monism is specifically Shaiva view.
Of course, one may call Anuttara (God) as Vishnu as well and hold a pure Paradvaita view. The example of this is found in Kashmiri Ekayana (pre-Pancharatra) Vaishnava tradition, as expressed by Sri Vamanadatta in his Samvitprakasha (pre-tenth century C.E.).


In short, any system of Yoga not based on ahimsa and brahmacharya are automatically to be rejected according to my beleifs. I wonder why you are always talking of "transcending Dharma" while the only way to transend Dharma is to follow Dharma. Advaita says that use the vyavahArika properly to transcend it, and never dismiss vyavahArika at the outset. That would be suicidal. Your spiritual progress will only be as Vishva, Taijasa, Pranjna and Turiya, but you are always talking about Turiya state. You cant get there without transcending the three states of Isvara, where Dharma has to be followed sincerely.

U are right in terms of a system U follow. My view is different since it is fully based on Bhairava-shasana.
Everyone has to follow his own Dharma, as Krishna states in Gita. Thus, no practical contradiction is there :)

TruthSeeker
13 May 2006, 11:42 AM
Namaste,

“This [universe is] manifold neither owing to the nature of Atman, nor somehow owing to its own [nature] even; nothing whatever [is] separate or non-separate ~ this the knowers of reality know.”

“By the sages void of attachment, fear and anger, who have completely mastered [lit. gone to the other shore of] the Vedas, is seen this cessation of Prapanca, free from imagined attributes [and] non-dual.”

Sages free from passion, fear, and anger, well versed in the Vedic lore, realize the Atman as non-dual, auspicious, free from all distinction and from Samsara.

“Therefore, having known this [Atman] thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality; having secured [or, realized] non-duality, one should carry on the worldly activities like an insensate one.”

Having realized the Advaita in this way, the sage should take care that he does not fall from that state, until the body is finally discarded.

One who has realized the Atman in this way has no use for prayers to Deities or sacrificial offerings to Fathers; he is beyond all Vidhi or Nishedha rules, he stays or wanders at will and goes on with his daily avocations like an automaton ~ and verily, he is Avadhuta.

What is your opinion on the state of an Avadhuta? Is he always in Turiya or can be in lower states, or simultaneously be in many states?

Also, Sri Ramana and Sri Ramakrishna had different opinions on the Turiya state.

According to Sri Ramana, Turiya is permanent and can be retained unto death once it is attained. He also says that he had never fallen from Turiya ever since he reached there when he was only 17.

According to Sri Ramakrishna, Turiya cannot be continuosly maintained for more than 21 days at a time, and if exceeded the Yogi would die.(but liberated anyway)

How to reconcile these apparently contradictory views? Were they different grades of Yogis, or the difference is due to their nature of Yoga?

TruthSeeker
13 May 2006, 02:59 PM
U are right in terms of a system U follow. My view is different since it is fully based on Bhairava-shasana.
Everyone has to follow his own Dharma, as Krishna states in Gita. Thus, no practical contradiction is there :)

But dont use Gita to justify the differences. When Sri Krishna is talking of Dharma, he is referring to Jati Dharma and Ashrama Dharma. For eg, a person in a family of thieves for generations cannot use "thief Dharma" as an excuse for his theft.

While Dharma cannot be a universal standard, and I do accept that there is truth outside vedas too. But there are certain parameters that have to be common. Every religion in the world has perhaps a monastic order, and these people are respected by the entire community. Thus you can see that Brahmacharya is a universal standard, and given considerable emphasis even by Buddhas and Jainas. A concession is extended to the grihasta because he has still not conquered his desires. But that might make him disqualified for mukti in that birth. Our shastras are lenient because Hinduism talks of many chances to achieve the summum bonnum of life. But those who are very serious about this must rise above the concessions provided by the shastras. A spiritualist must not look for loopholes in the vedas to justify his beleifs. One who dilutes the sciptural practices may not accomplish what he has set out to do. He may be reborn several times again, till he gets them right. That is the role of scripture -- they shorten the run to salvation. Without the scripture guidelines, it might take more time to get things right.

Similarly, Ahimsa is given top priority by all religions in the world. Non violence against other humans, both physical and mental are forbidden by all religions. Some of the more spiritual religions, like Hinduism have taken this a step higher - non violence is recommended even on animals. Some of the higher schools in Hinduism will totally prohibit himsa of any kind - this represents a school that takes God realization very seriously.

People can beleive in anything they want, but ahimsa should be fundamental. (That does not really mean Hindus should start bowing to foreigners if they invade our lands). The Yama states this beautifully - Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, Aparigraha, brahmacharya represent Dharma that need to be upheld all the time till death.

Every spiritual person in the world must practice the Yama Dharma to the best of his abilities and circumstances. All traditions based on the vedas enforce this. The practice of Dharma is far more important than one's beleifs and philosophical positions. Once a person has settled in Yama and Niyama, Yoga will come after him, not the other way around. Liberation will come knocking at the door to the person establshed in Dharma.

Znanna
14 May 2006, 08:57 AM
Meat and wine (or spirits) do dull the senses (including psychic).

Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not.

JMHO



Love,
ZN

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 09:08 AM
How to reconcile these apparently contradictory views? Were they different grades of Yogis, or the difference is due to their nature of Yoga?

I would guess it is because they were different grade of Yogis~difference in extrenal yoga they followed cannot lead to 2 views of the same unchanging reality. But may be it is better not to directly compare saints and their level of realization publicly~I'm not sure everyone can take such a thing.

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 09:32 AM
Meat and wine (or spirits) do dull the senses (including psychic).

Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not.

JMHO



Love,
ZN
Meat and wine are regarded as rajasic and tamasic diets and hence above is expected. Practically and personally that would be the only reason to avoid meat-eating as I find ahimsha argument little weak in this issue.

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 10:46 AM
Meat and wine (or spirits) do dull the senses (including psychic).
Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not.

This depends on how U use these ;). Dullness or illumination may be as a result. And both are unrelated to Consciousness of the Self.

TruthSeeker
14 May 2006, 12:45 PM
I would guess it is because they were different grade of Yogis~difference in extrenal yoga they followed cannot lead to 2 views of the same unchanging reality. But may be it is better not to directly compare saints and their level of realization publicly~I'm not sure everyone can take such a thing.

Yes, that is a sensitive topic. But we are only comparing views and trying to find a common ground, and not weight them on scales. :D

Scriptures classify rishis into Rajarishi, Devarishi and Brahmarishi based on their spiritual status. Even Rajarishi is an extraordinary status to attain, so there can be differences even between the greatest Yogis. In Jnana Yoga the last three stages are all considered liberated in the body, though they are not equal and maybe the reason for difference of opinions between different monists and even dualists.

External Yoga can produce significant difference between Yogis while they are still alive, though they will experience non dualty on death. For eg, a person practicing great Bhakti without Yoga, may never experience outward spiritual experiences, though the spirituality will remain dormant until death. After death he may attain moxa, but he would be very ordinary person while he was still alive. Advaita may not support para mukti for a bhakta (without Jnana) though, and the liberation would be in the realm of Isvara.

Jnana is classifed into three in one system - Karma Jnana resulting from the practice of Karma Yoga, which is the equivalent of Taijasa. Brahma Jnana and Moxa Jnana are two stages where non dualty with Isvara and finally with the Absolute ceases.

sarabhanga
16 May 2006, 05:06 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

अहिंसासत्यास्तेयब्रह्मचर्यापरिग्रहा यमाः
ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH [Yoga Sutra 2.30]

The rule given to Noah was “No Bloodshed”, “No Murder”, or “Do not Kill”, which has often been interpreted as “Do not kill humans”.

The same rule has long been known by Hindus as Ahimsa ~ “Without Harm” or “Harmlessness”

Ahimsa is “Restraint from Harming” other living creatures, which engenders love for all creation and a feeling of oneness with all.

Just as all Vedanta is an interpretation of Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras, all Yoga is an interpretation of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras.

Arjuna
16 May 2006, 01:25 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

??????????????????????????????????? ????
ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH [Yoga Sutra 2.30]

The rule given to Noah was “No Bloodshed”, “No Murder”, or “Do not Kill”, which has often been interpreted as “Do not kill humans”.

The same rule has long been known by Hindus as Ahimsa ~ “Without Harm” or “Harmlessness”

Ahimsa is “Restraint from Harming” other living creatures, which engenders love for all creation and a feeling of oneness with all.

Just as all Vedanta is an interpretation of Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras, all Yoga is an interpretation of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I do not reject the concept of Ahimsa per se, difference lies in its interpretation by different traditions.

I wouldn't agree with Ur final supposition — there are many Yoga schools which are quite independent from Patanjali or even completely separate from his Ashtanga-yoga!

The word "yoga" didn't originate with Patanjali and is not limited to his darshana.

TruthSeeker
16 May 2006, 03:14 PM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

I do not reject the concept of Ahimsa per se, difference lies in its interpretation by different traditions.

I wouldn't agree with Ur final supposition — there are many Yoga schools which are quite independent from Patanjali or even completely separate from his Ashtanga-yoga!

The word "yoga" didn't originate with Patanjali and is not limited to his darshana.

Bhagavad Gita says that mukta-yogyas or those fit to be liberated ( the divine ones) possesses these qualities:

Fearlesslness, pure, charity, self-control, austerity, learning of scripture, simplicity, non violence, truthfullness, control over anger, renunciation, tranquility, non fault finding, compassion, being rid of desire and envy, gentleness. modesty, forgivenes, cleanliness etc.( 16.1-16.3)

These are virtually non different from the one's in Patanjali Yogi. The method of Yoga can be different, but these rules are common to all Yogas. These are the divine qualities that qualify one to even involve in Yoga. Do you agree that divine qualities are need for a Yogi?

Non violence, Renunciation, compassion, gentleness - these four of the above are sufficient to dismiss animal killing and eating as "not divine" qualities.

Ahimsa does not have many interpretations - it means non violence, and in the absence of qualifiers, non violence to all is implied. It could be misinterpreted to non violence only to human beings, non violence only to family members, non violence only towards one's own countrymen etc. Such definitions are not useful. The same interpretation applies to compassion, gentleness etc - they dont mean compassion to some select species.

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 05:02 AM
Non violence, Renunciation, compassion, gentleness - these four of the above are sufficient to dismiss animal killing and eating as "not divine" qualities.
Ahimsa does not have many interpretations - it means non violence, and in the absence of qualifiers, non violence to all is implied. It could be misinterpreted to non violence only to human beings, non violence only to family members, non violence only towards one's own countrymen etc. Such definitions are not useful. The same interpretation applies to compassion, gentleness etc - they dont mean compassion to some select species.

Namaste,

I have clarified my position enough, and i would like not to continue an arguement.

The only problem was when people try to say that ALL Yoga is based on Patanjali or that ALL Yoga must be vegetarian. This is wrong, both theoretically and practically.

sarabhanga
17 May 2006, 06:56 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

It is not true that all Yoga depends on every word of Patanjali, but all Yoga certainly does depend on Yamaniyama, as given by Patanjali.

All of the various Yoga systems are elaborations of Niyama ~ indeed, perfection in Niyama is the completion of all Yoga.

And every interpretation of Niyama depends absolutely on Yama.

Yama applies equally to all humanity, while Niyama is the special duty of Brahmanas.

In essence, every practising Yogin is a Brahmacarin; and every true Brahmana is a perfected Yogin.

Brahmanas, and especially Yogins, MUST follow Yamaniyama.

We have agreed that occasionally eating sanctified flesh in the strictly controlled performance of a sacrificial offering is traditionally permitted.

To suggest that this allows Brahmanas and Yogins to adopt a generally non-vegetarian diet without compromising their spiritual development is absurd!

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 08:52 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
It is not true that all Yoga depends on every word of Patanjali, but all Yoga certainly does depend on Yamaniyama, as given by Patanjali.

Then again we have to admit an exception of Atimargika systems of Shaivism, such as ancient Somasiddhanta (Kapalika) and later Kula, Aghora and alike.
Since while most of Yama-niyama set is present there, there is no restriction of diet there. And verily these systems are Yogic.


In essence, every practising Yogin is a Brahmacarin; and every true Brahmana is a perfected Yogin.

Fully agree.


To suggest that this allows Brahmanas and Yogins to adopt a generally non-vegetarian diet without compromising their spiritual development is absurd!

This is right with a abovementioned exception.

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 04:14 PM
Namaste to all,

There had been raised a question of authoritativeness of Manu-smriti: i have found a notion by Kapali Shastriar that originally Manu-smriti consisted of only 700 verses (The Book of Lights 1, Pondicherry, 1988, p. 316). If we accept this is true, then remaining verses are interpolated.

hanuman_das
03 July 2006, 04:43 AM
Dear bhakti of god,
If you need to buy a vegetarian cookbook, you must visit Kurma Das`s site online.
In the west , there are so many lovely vegetarian foods to buy, I can`t understand why ppl still eat animals. Oh yes, I forgot, it`s a multi million pound buisness for governments, and very rich people!
Haribol, hare Krishna.

mirabai
14 March 2007, 11:13 AM
biologically our intestine is not built to digest a carnivore meal. vaishnavas dont take onion and garlic because they are used as hypnotic and like urea can dampen your thinking.

Namaste Friends,

This is another good point, and I tend to agree.

My understanding is that the digestive process is designed to accommodate fermentation, which is how vegetation breaks down. Meat on the other hand goes through a putrification process instead of fermentation. It does not digest efficiently in our bodies, leaving tiny fibers of meat lodged in the folds of the intestines which continue to putrify and can develop into tumors. The tumors have the possibility of becoming malignant.

A combination of meat-eating, poor diet, daily comsumption of processed food, inadequate water intake, and sedentary lifestyle is an invitation to serious and deadly health problems.
So a trade-off may be advisable; if you must eat meat occasionally, it is a good idea to establish a balance by making sure your diet is totally healthy in other areas, and stay completely away from processed foods.

That said, I also think that as we begin to understand the connection between mind and body, we see that it is necessary to gain control of our outward self in order to gain enough control of our mind to begin the process of looking in-ward to our eternal self.

All these posts are good considerations and I don't really disagree with any of them, although I do follow a definite chosen path. Personally I think we each ultimately must find the path that is appropriate to our own unique situation.

Narayanan!

TatTvamAsi
13 May 2008, 02:19 AM
talk about resurrecting an old thread.. LOL

It's interesting to find that nobody has brought up the three gunas when talking about vegetarianism.

Meat and all non-vegetarian foods are tamasic in nature and strengthen one's lower impulses/emotions like anger, envy, and lust. To have a hightened spiritual state, it is absolutely necessary to abstain from anything tamasic and even rajasic; whether it is food, action, etc.

A disciplined sattvic lifestyle will enable one to practice yoga better and remain in a state of equilibrium (so to speak).

MahaHrada
13 May 2008, 10:40 AM
Namaste TTA

Because there is no fiber in animal products, it causes a lot of physical problems.

When a person consumes fruit or vegetables, the food digests in thirty to sixty minutes, because it contains fiber it is propelled rapidly through the intestines, it is out of the body in sixteen to twenty hours.

When a person removes the fiber from vegetables and drinks only the juice, digestion is unnecessary, and so the nutrients are able to go directly to cellular level.

But when a person consumes an animal product because there is no fiber
it moves very sluggishly through the intestinal tract, taking up to three to four days to exit the body.
Body odor is caused by meat putrefying in the intestinal tract for three to four days at temperatures of almost 100 degrees.

Most people who stop consuming animal products are able to eliminate all deodorants shortly after removing the animal products from their diet.

This means that vegetarian diet will reduce the impure vapours, and eliminante the presence of rotten substances, that can also be cause of hindrance in sadhana.

Smell is a perfect carrier of prana and prana a carrier of mental imprints good and bad, thats why special care should be taken to avoid contact with bad smell originating from an impure mental and physical environment/persons when one is involved in sadhana.

Combination of a bad mental attitude and stinking bodily vapours is worse than a plain bad attitude, because of the reinforcement.

This also is true with pure nice smell like flowers, natural fluid perfumes, dhup and other substances used in puja, it will attract the sattvic.


hinsAyAm dUyate yasmad hindurityabhidyate

meru tantra

Since some persons uneducated in the principles of bharat dharma might think that veda recommends meat eating i like to add the following excerpts:

Imam sāhasram śatadhāramutsam vyacyamānam sarirasya madhye
Ghŗtam duhānāmaditim janāyāgne mā himsiħ parame vyoman.

The one who protects and sustains hundreds and thousands, one who is the fountain of milk, one who supplies people with milk, one who is aditi, do not torture such a cow
Yajurveda (13.49)

Ya āmam mānsamadanti paureşeyam ca ye kraviħ
Garbhānkhadanti keśavāstānito nāśayāmasi.

We ought to destroy them who eat cooked or uncooked meat as well as eggs, who have made their bodies the graveyards.
Atharvaveda (8.6.23)

Yathā mānsam yathā surā yathākşā adhidevane
Yathā pumso vŗşaņyata striyām nihanyate manaħ
Eva te aghnye mano-adhi vatse ni hanyatam.

Consumption of meat and liquor, gambling, and adultery hurt you within.
One who commits such acts, verily kills himself.
Atharvaveda (6.70.1)

Anumantha vishasitha nihantaa krayavikrayee|
Samskrtha chopahartha cha khadakaschethi ghatakah

Those who permit the slaying of animals, and those who bring the animals for slaughter, those who slaughter, those who sell the meat, those who purchases the meat, those who prepare the dish out of it, those who serve that food, and those who eat that meat are all Villains.

Manusmrithi 5.51

Ga maa himsiradhitim virajam [yajurveda 13.43]

[Do not kill the cow which is splendor of life and [which is] inviolable.

Imam Maa himseedvipadam pashum [yaj 13.48]
[Do not kill the animal with unsplit hooves]

Imam utsam ma himsi [yaj 13.49]
[Do not kill the Ox]

Imam urnayam ma himsihi [yaju 13.50]
[Do not kill this sheep]

O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you eat masa [phaseolus radiatus] and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically
meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers [male and female animals]
Atharveda 6.140.2


O God! Protect the cattle of Yajamam (yajamanasya pashunpahi) yaj 1.1

Do not ye torture man and other animals [Maa himsi purusham jagat] yaj6.3

Ye men and women, both of you together protect your cattle [pashustreetheyatam ] yaj 6.11


Kravy da –kravya[ meat obtained from slaughter] + Ada [ the eater]—the meat eater.
Pisacha -- pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater.
Asutrpa -- Asu [breath of life] + trpa [one who satisfies himself on]—one who takes others life for his meals.
Garba da and Anda da – the foetus and egg eaters. Mans da – the meat eaters.

All these words are synonyms of demons or devils.

Mahahrada

Indra
13 May 2008, 02:26 PM
Namaste,



Kravy da –kravya[ meat obtained from slaughter] + Ada [ the eater]—the meat eater.
Pisacha -- pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater.
Asutrpa -- Asu [breath of life] + trpa [one who satisfies himself on]—one who takes others life for his meals.
Garba da and Anda da – the foetus and egg eaters. Mans da – the meat eaters.

All these words are synonyms of demons or devils.

Mahahrada

How do you explain that animals eat meat too and kill other animals for meal? Being vegetarian maybe noble but the humans need some meat too and humans are created to eat fruits, vegetables and meat. Why we are created to eat animals if we are not allowed to?

dhruva023
13 May 2008, 03:36 PM
Namaste,



How do you explain that animals eat meat too and kill other animals for meal? Being vegetarian maybe noble but the humans need some meat too and humans are created to eat fruits, vegetables and meat. Why we are created to eat animals if we are not allowed to?


Who says we are created to eat animals?

Only danav ate animals and sacrified them before Mahabharat happned.
When Shiva gave his last Shivling to Arjun, he said that there will be no more danavs. Every one will born as a human. SO, eating meat is finished there. not anymore.

In regard to animals eating meat, Its their way of life. They dont do sadhana, and they dont have any specific great target like us (Moksha).

satay
13 May 2008, 03:41 PM
namaskar,


Why we are created to eat animals if we are not allowed to?

You can eat meat. No one is stopping you.

However, as suggested earlier, eating meat is tamasic activity and an hinderence to one's sadhana. Eating meat promotes animal like qualities which are not good for those who are trying to quiet the mind and experience bliss.

MahaHrada
13 May 2008, 07:17 PM
Namaste,

How do you explain that animals eat meat too and kill other animals for meal? Being vegetarian maybe noble but the humans need some meat too and humans are created to eat fruits, vegetables and meat. Why we are created to eat animals if we are not allowed to?


Namaste


I clearly gave the reason for the veda quotes as follows:

"Since some persons uneducated in the principles of bharat dharma might think that veda recommends meat eating i like to add the following excerpts"

It is only brahmins that should follow the injunctions of the veda, i never said you or anybody else should follow these recommendations.

I mentioned the quotes that show that vedas do not advise a regular meat diet, solely for the reason of providing the information not for promoting a certain diet for everybody.

I further remarked that some sadhanas can be obstructed by food (or other habits) that causes one to exude stinking rotten vapours from ones body openings, also eating garlic and onion is discouraged because of this reason.

This is not a matter of allowance or not allowance.

MahaHrada

yajvan
13 May 2008, 08:11 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

this conversation comes up quite regularly on HDF. It seems the ones that suggest meat eating is okay, are the ones, well , that are eating meat today. And the ones that suggest it is better to avoid meat are the vegetarians. Hence the lines are drawn.

As we have discussed, what is your intent in life? If one wishes to pursue a spiritual path (sadhana), then there is plenty of guidance suggesting that meat is something to be avoided... It is considered ahiṁsā or non-injury. This HDF post ( for those interested) reviews this notion: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2956


Now, I am biased, no doubt. I do not consume meat, fish, fowl, all that is mentioned. And my daughter, now 25 has never eaten meat in her life, yet she is healthy, happy, etc. This is a sample size of 1, and not statistically valid, yet offered for one simple reason:
The argument of meat and protein is IMHO over emphasized. There is plenty of protein sources other then that found in animal meat.

Now do I what to convince you to stop eating meat? Not my job. Yet IMHO the world would be a better place if this did occur.


But what about the animal kingdom? they eat meat. Yes they do. That is their program. Their program is pure survival. Eat, sleep, procreate, defend, stay alive as long as possible to advance the species. This is in their DNA.
One would argue this too is in our DNA we have some of the same things. Yes there is no doubt of this, but also have the ability for Self-consciousness, choice, the will of action, reflection, making our own rules, compassion, things like that.

There is a time when one chooses and sees that the animal kingdom is a species that is not here for consumption, that there is an appreciation for this animal kingdom. They share the same planet, then its natural not to see them a lunch.

But what of the vegetable kingdom? This is interesting. Look at any fruit or vegetable. In each tomato there are seeds to provide for a 100 more tomatoes. An apple, with the seeds to grow another 10 trees and 100's of apples for years. The vegetable kingdom comes as a gift that is self-replenishing ( at least that is how I see it).

Take a cow, you milk the cow for years, have cream, butter, ghee. Yet can only kill the cow once. ( Once too many for the cow's preference too).
Again, I am biased... as this life style works for me and has been a blessing for the greater part of my life.

The man who has eaten meat then gives it up acquires merit by such an act that is so great that a study of all the vedas or a performance of all the sacrifices cannot bestow its like ( or its equal ) - Bhishma, The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, section CXV ( or section 115).

pranams

yajvan
19 May 2008, 06:22 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Regarding how we treat other creatures, Vidura, talking to King Dhritarashtra mentions the following:

'Ablution in all the holy places and kindness to all creatures, these two are equal. Perhaps, kindness to all creatures surpasseth the former'

Mahabharata, Udyogya¹ Parva, Section XXXV


I am still challenged swatting mosquitoes and flies!:o



1. Udyogya उद्योग the act of undertaking anything , exertion , perseverance , strenuous and continuous endeavour ; active preparation


pranams

devotee
19 May 2008, 08:50 PM
I am still challenged swatting mosquitoes and flies!:o


Namaste yajvan ji,

This question has bothered me for quite long. However, whenever I have this doubt, I consider these things :

i) As a human being, what is my dharma towards harmful insects, bacteria & other similar organism ? Can we live even for a day without killing innumerable bacteria every second ? If killing, per se, is considered adharma then living itself becomes illegal. I (my body) must die to stop all these killings ! Though I am not afraid to die, is it my dharma ?

ii) If killing was bad in all circumstances then Srimadbhagwad Gita would lose its meaning.

iii) In Vyaadh Gita, the "Butcher saint" kills animals & sells their meat everyday & still remains untainted by any sin. Why ?

iv) Once this question arose in the mind of one of the disciples of Sri Ramkrishna Pramahans at the mid of night. He was so disturbed with these thoughts that he decided to go & meet the Guru at that time itself. When he reached the holy ashram of Sri Ramkrishna, he was astonished to see that Sri Ramkrishna was awake picking & killing bugs from his blanket ! The disciple was spellbound ! He never in his life had seen or heard this great teacher acting this way. He knew that this was the answer to his bothersome question & he need not ask any more & disturb the great saint at this time.

Regards

OM

jayswami
02 June 2008, 05:33 AM
if the whole world becomes vegetarian, there wont be enough food to feed everyone.. especially if we exclude sea food.. so does this mean that not everyone in this plannet could become hindu and vegetarian?

what about eskimos? how can they become vegetarian? so according to fewe here.. eskimos will rot in hell?

my take.. vegetarianism has nothing to do with hinduism.. in india its a cultural thing. and for a hot weather country like india.. being vegetarian is easy and also ethical (not killing animals unnecesarily)

MahaHrada
02 June 2008, 10:29 AM
if the whole world becomes vegetarian, there wont be enough food to feed everyone.

Nonsense-It is exactly the other way around, hunger can be exterminated if people would become vegetarian, because meat production uses up much more natural resources and land than production of food crops, therefore on top of causing health problems, it is wasting the resources of this planet.

As has been said before there is no doubt that vegeterian diet is a part of some aspects of Hinduism, it is required for certain sadhanas and also in certain application of Yoga.


Follow these links:


Meat production's environmental toll February 1, 2007
Wilderness destruction, soil erosion, energy waste, and pollution.

By Stephen Leckie

Section titles:
Farm animals outweigh people (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#outweigh)
A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#diet)
Farm animals naturally inefficient (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#inefficient)
Agriculture vs wilderness (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#agriculture)
Excessive use of energy & water (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#energy)
Livestock grazing (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#grazing)
Fish – plundering the oceans (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#fish)
Facing food scarcity (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#scarcity)
Solutions (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#solutions)

Excerpt:

Solutions



Eating low on the food chain is a powerful way to reduce the amount of land needed to support your existence (your ecological footprint). Less farmland means more wilderness. It also means less soil erosion, less dams, less pesticides, and less energy use.

Plant-based cuisine is also healthy for the body. Numerous studies show that vegetarian foods greatly help in the prevention of heart disease, cancer, and many other diet-related diseases.

As the earth's human population continues to expand, two things are critical for our survival: adequate food resources and intact wilderness areas. One sure way to achieve both is a dramatic shift in food choices, away from animal products toward plant-based foods.

Excerpted from a paper presented at the 1997 International Conference on Sustainable Urban Food Systems, held at Ryerson University.

jayswami
02 June 2008, 04:20 PM
Nonsense-It is exactly the other way around, hunger can be exterminated if people would become vegetarian, because meat production uses up much more natural resources and land than production of food crops, therefore on top of causing health problems, it is wasting the resources of this planet.

As has been said before there is no doubt that vegeterian diet is a part of some aspects of Hinduism, it is required for certain sadhanas and also in certain application of Yoga.


Follow these links:


Meat production's environmental toll February 1, 2007
Wilderness destruction, soil erosion, energy waste, and pollution.

By Stephen Leckie

Section titles:
Farm animals outweigh people (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#outweigh)
A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#diet)
Farm animals naturally inefficient (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#inefficient)
Agriculture vs wilderness (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#agriculture)
Excessive use of energy & water (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#energy)
Livestock grazing (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#grazing)
Fish – plundering the oceans (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#fish)
Facing food scarcity (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#scarcity)
Solutions (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#solutions)

Excerpt:

Solutions



Eating low on the food chain is a powerful way to reduce the amount of land needed to support your existence (your ecological footprint). Less farmland means more wilderness. It also means less soil erosion, less dams, less pesticides, and less energy use.

Plant-based cuisine is also healthy for the body. Numerous studies show that vegetarian foods greatly help in the prevention of heart disease, cancer, and many other diet-related diseases.

As the earth's human population continues to expand, two things are critical for our survival: adequate food resources and intact wilderness areas. One sure way to achieve both is a dramatic shift in food choices, away from animal products toward plant-based foods.

Excerpted from a paper presented at the 1997 International Conference on Sustainable Urban Food Systems, held at Ryerson University.



can u explain to me how you are gonna provide rice to the eskimos and help them survive the bitter cold?

or how u r gonna provide veg food to the tribals in manipur whose easiest source of nourishment is by hunting or fishing? and billions of such people across the world? universal vegetarianism is illogical and impossible and irrelevent

MahaHrada
02 June 2008, 05:28 PM
can u explain to me how you are gonna provide rice to the eskimos and help them survive the bitter cold?

or how u r gonna provide veg food to the tribals in manipur whose easiest source of nourishment is by hunting or fishing? and billions of such people across the world? universal vegetarianism is illogical and impossible and irrelevent

I never wrote that i plan to provide rice to eskimos or manipur tribes, also nobody talked about universal vegetarism.
It would be nice if you respond to those things which where actually stated in the postings, instead of arguing against something you freely imagine as you like and which nobody was stupid enough to actually propose..

MahaHrada

Hiwaunis
02 June 2008, 06:21 PM
can u explain to me how you are gonna provide rice to the eskimos and help them survive the bitter cold?

or how u r gonna provide veg food to the tribals in manipur whose easiest source of nourishment is by hunting or fishing? and billions of such people across the world? universal vegetarianism is illogical and impossible and irrelevent

Om Shanti,
I do not see the problem with providing food to the eskimos or any place else in the world. If we can send our "junk" to Mars then surely we can send food across the globe.

Of course as the saying goes, "you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink".

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

MahaHrada
03 June 2008, 06:01 AM
Om Shanti,
I do not see the problem with providing food to the eskimos or any place else in the world. If we can send our "junk" to Mars then surely we can send food across the globe.

Of course as the saying goes, "you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink".

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

Besides that, if there is an ethical problem it is not so much whether some hunting or fishing tribes retain their customs, but it is about the industrialised meat production.

Warning Please take this warning serious.
You tube video meet your meat part 1 and 2

http://www.youtube.com/v/ySUZdu5A3TY&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/v/2Ts4GEpnzj8&hl=en

This film shows unimaginable cruelty of industrialised meat production.

You might never forget what you see, this is really bad. If you are a vegetarian maybe it is better you do not watch this.

If you are a meat eater you should know about this.

Actually it is that bad i asked myself whether it is appropriate to post these links at all.I decided to do this nonetheless in the hope to raise awareness.

There are already alternatives, i.e. ecological meat products in some countries available, where production cruelty is reduced, get those if you are a meat eater and you do not have the oppurtunity to hunt or fish yourself.


MahaHrada

Hiwaunis
05 June 2008, 08:23 PM
Om Shanti,
Oh my God!!!!!! That second video was absolutely HORRIBLE! I had no idea that even the milk cows were mistreated. So what about icecream and butter?

I think you did the right thing by posting the YouTube links. There are those who can't see the wrong in eating meat because they don't actually see the brutality and killing. But even after seeing the truth it is not that easy to just stop eating animals and animal products.

However, it was that easy for me. I don't know why but one day I remembered a saying that went something like this, " all behavior is learned behavior". I realized that I was taught to eat meat so I could teach myself to be a vegetarian. Besides meat doesn't even taste good. It's the seasonings that give it the taste. Also, without the seasonings it smells bad.

I have met many people who have said that they can't live without eating meat, they can't stop eating meat, they have to have meat, etc. My response, maybe. As intelligent beings we can do anything that we put our minds to. Someone once said, "think that you can or think that you can't either way you will be right".

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

devotee
05 June 2008, 11:16 PM
Namaste Hiwaunis,


" all behavior is learned behavior". I realized that I was taught to eat meat so I could teach myself to be a vegetarian.
...
Someone once said, "think that you can or think that you can't either way you will be right".


Well said ! :)

OM

MahaHrada
06 June 2008, 11:29 AM
Om Shanti,
Oh my God!!!!!! That second video was absolutely HORRIBLE! I had no idea that even the milk cows were mistreated. So what about icecream and butter?


Yes and what about ghee we use in havan or as dipa? I must admit that it is only recently that i switched to ecological produced butter.


I think you did the right thing by posting the YouTube links. There are those who can't see the wrong in eating meat because they don't actually see the brutality and killing. But even after seeing the truth it is not that easy to just stop eating animals and animal products.

Thats why i wrote that at least in western countries, the ethical issue is not so much about being a vegeterian, but first of all off trying to avoid industrial produced animal products, as far as possible.

For india and other countries who do not have such an extensive and cruel industrial meat production than the one that exists in the western countries, the issue would be to make shure that these torture chambers, and the underlying ideology of greed are not exported and introduced in their countries and if this is already underway people should act against it, while this is still possible,actually i have little hope and i guess when the idea that there are only two varnas, one consisting of those that have money and the other of those that don&#180;t have money, and nothing else than having money and power will be respected, if that mentality is fully established also industrial meat production will begin.

MahaHrada

Hiwaunis
06 June 2008, 08:49 PM
Yes and what about ghee we use in havan or as dipa? I must admit that it is only recently that i switched to ecological produced butter.



Thats why i wrote that at least in western countries, the ethical issue is not so much about being a vegeterian, but first of all off trying to avoid industrial produced animal products, as far as possible.

For india and other countries who do not have such an extensive and cruel industrial meat production than the one that exists in the western countries, the issue would be to make shure that these torture chambers, and the underlying ideology of greed are not exported and introduced in their countries and if this is already underway people should act against it, while this is still possible,actually i have little hope and i guess when the idea that there are only two varnas, one consisting of those that have money and the other of those that don´t have money, and nothing else than having money and power will be respected, if that mentality is fully established also industrial meat production will begin.

MahaHrada

Om Shanti,
Let's not loose our faith. Let's keep our hopes high. Many people are becoming vegetarians just because it compliments their spiritual practice. We also have the Masters of the past and present on our side. This is just another phase in the cycle. This too will pass.

There may be a small amount of people with a lot of money, but there is a large amount of intelligent people with some money and good credit. Don't count them out. They are tired of being lied to and manipulated. The truth is brighter than the sun. Eventually, all will see it.

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

saidevo
30 September 2008, 05:43 AM
Foodscape: the height of food art

These days it is a fashion to display in wedding receptions art figures carved out of vegetables and a Ganesha image made of a large piece of ice. Check this link for the height of creativity with food art by the photographer Carl Warner:

http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2008/01/foodscape-food-art-feast-frenzy.html

Jack_ripper
26 October 2008, 01:26 AM
Sorry guys, I am new to this forum and i think i am lost here. Can anybody tell me what we are discussing right now? I mean what is vegetarianism? I am a vegetarian by the way :)