Is Lord Shiva vegetarian?And the other devas?

[orlando]

Namaste all.
At http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/4regs/vegetarian/dharma.htm I founde the following:
"In Kali-yuga men all over the world are very expert in opening slaughterhouses for killing animals, which they eat. If the old ritualistic ceremonies were observed, people would be encouraged to kill more and more animals. In Calcutta there are many butcher shops which keep a deity of the goddess Kali, and animal-eaters think it proper to purchase animal flesh from such shops in hope that they are eating the remnants of food offered to goddess Kali. They do not know that goddess Kali never accepts nonvegetarian food because she is the chaste wife of Lord Siva. Lord Siva is also a great Vaisnava and never eats nonvegetarian food, and the goddess Kali accepts the remnants of food left by Lord Siva. Therefore there is no possibility of her eating flesh or fish. Such offerings are accepted by the associates of goddess Kali known as bhutas, pisacas and Raksasas, and those who take the prasada of goddess Kali in the shape of flesh or fish are not actually taking the prasada left by goddess Kali, but the food left by the bhutas and pisacas."

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4:19:36 Purport

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.


Are there pramanas in the scriptures that say that Lord Shiva and other devas are vegetarian?
Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Are there pramanas in the scriptures that say that Lord Shiva and other devas are vegetarian?

Namaste,

In Vedic cult animals were sacrificed to Devas, who were supposed to eat those sacrifices, and vaidika brahmanas ate meat of sacrificial animals as a part of Yajna ritual.

In Puranas and Itihasas Shiva is thought of as a hunter. Logically he had to eat meat, though exact evidences need to be found. Is here anyone present who has Shiva-purana and other Shaiva-puranas? I think it should be present in these. Kalika-purana says that Krishna was eating meat, drinking wine and enjoying women — which is logical since he was a kshatriya and a king.

In Tantras Shiva and Kali are seen as eating meat and drinking alcohol. Meat and wine were originally offered to Jagannatha in his temple in Puri, and to his Shakti, Vimala-devi, animal offerings were done.

ISKCON followers are very eager to prove vegetarianism is Vedic and is a must for everyone. But facts are against such view. Although vegetarianism always was a part of Hinduism, it never was a must for everyone. Moreover, consuming meat was a essential part of many Vedic and Tantric rituals.

[ramkish42]

Gods do not eat your foods and offerings. There is no point in classifying them as vegetarian and non vegetarian.

Hinduism as not idea of vegetarianism and non vegetarianism. What we believe is Saativic, Rajasic and Tamasi foods. Many try to classify Saaticvic as vegetarianism but it cannot match. For Saativic reject onions and garlic which are verily vegetarian and accepts milk, curd, butter and ghee which are animal foods.

I am surprised why people verily jump to conclusion on this trying to fit vegetarianism and non vegetarianism to Vedic texts.

As far as general hindu view is concerned, what 5 great perceptors opine is valid. (Shri Adi sanakara Bhagavatpada, Shrimad Ramanuja, Shri Maadhavacharya, Shri Vallabhacharya and Shri Nimbarka - Shri Chaitanya mahaprabhu is included in Shri Maadhavacharya doctrine). If all these five oppose a thing, it verily goes against the religion as whole. If all these five agree on a thing it automatically becomes general hindu view. We can also add Shaiva siddantavadins in the 5 great perceptor list for they are also a dominant community

As far as vedic view is concerned, only rituals allow eating meat for participants of those rituals as prasada of the ritual. Even here, we have moved far away from this, condemning Mimaamsaka opinions and most of the rituals are not practised.

As few rituals by itself are classified as saativic rituals, rajasic rituals and tamasic rituals, it is natural for such rituals to make ordinance accordingly for food. As veda does not precribe meat and alcohol for religious minded people IN NORMAL COURSE and gives preference to Saativic food we can verily conclude Vegetarianism is vedic

Jai shree krishna

[TruthSeeker]

Lord Shiva is himself the vegetarian and non vegetarian food...why bother about his consuming meat? Dont set rules for the almighty.:)

[Singhi Kaya]

Moreover, consuming meat was a essential part of many Vedic and Tantric rituals.

It's a part of ritual only and doesn't shaap bimochana mantras implicitely warn why these things are harmful to be addicted to? Performed under a strict mentality of devotion the meaning changes. Tantras don't forcibly stop addictions but greadually tries to overcome the very bondage in mind for them.

Consuming meat or wine in a ritual is fine~one has to understand the implicit goal there. That doesn't mean being addicted to them in life as well. About non-veg in general as Ramkish said it is not sattvic. It is not a sin or any such thing, but not being addicted to them is highly preferable.

[Bhava dasa]

ISKCON followers are very eager to prove vegetarianism is Vedic and is a must for everyone. [/quote]
If you want to escape the cycle of samsara, don't act in a way that will force you to stay in it.

[orlando]

Of course he refers to every human being.

[Bhava dasa]

Of course he refers to every human being.
Sorry, as you were replying to my post, I was slightly modifying it.

[Sudarshan]

If you want to escape the cycle of samsara, don't act in a way that will force you to stay in it.

I dont think it is a great deal preaching this. Good and noble souls will never kill animals for the reasons of "jiva karunyam" - compassion towards all life. It will take some time for a soul to get to this level of purity. I will not say that a meat eater will not get moksha because it is decided by many other factors too -- but it is unlikely that a soul that has reached close to the doorsteps of God would relish meat eating. Eating meat is not bad, but reveals some kind of cruelty in you, which is not a divine quality.

[Sudarshan]

Gods do not eat your foods and offerings. There is no point in classifying them as vegetarian and non vegetarian.


Namaste Ramkish, it is said that God eats the life in the food, and you eat the junk left after that. There is a saying in Tamil - avi avanukku miti namakku or something like that.

Even plants have life and it is a kind of sin to eat them. This is the purpose they are offered to God before eating. God eats the life part of the plant and you eat the left over - See BG 3.13

[satay]

God eats the life part of the plant and you eat the left over - See BG 3.13

:)
This is all symbolic, isn't it? I offer my food to bhagwan but I have never seen him actually eating it. :D or do I need divine eyes for that?:naughty:


ps: you can ignore my post...I am in one of those silly moods today...

[Sudarshan]

:)
This is all symbolic, isn't it? I offer my food to bhagwan but I have never seen him actually eating it. :D or do I need divine eyes for that?:naughty:


You can see Bhagavan eating definitely, For that you have to see Bhagavan first.:)
If you cant see that how can you see him eat? Human eyes are certainly insuffcient for the purpose unless God descends into the human plane like an avatar. Divine vision has nothing to do with physical sight in the ultimate sense.

On the other hand, yes, it is symbolic only. I dont want to turn Hinduism into a myth - you remember us fighting the bible myth not long ago? Dont want to waste all that effort to convert our religion into a similar myth..;)

[ramkish42]

Namaste Ramkish, it is said that God eats the life in the food, and you eat the junk left after that. There is a saying in Tamil - avi avanukku miti namakku or something like that.

Even plants have life and it is a kind of sin to eat them. This is the purpose they are offered to God before eating. God eats the life part of the plant and you eat the left over - See BG 3.13

http://www.ishwar.com/hinduism/holy_bhagavad_gita_sanskrit/chapter03_l2.gif

I am pasting 10 - 20 of Bhagavat Gita herein.

Nowhere before 3:13 or after 3:13, Lord eating life part and we eating the balance is indicated.

3:13 says

ISKCON: 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.

Kilathur Srinivasacharyar: Good Human eat the remains after Yajna, thus liberated from all sins. Those who cook for themselves eat the very papa

Swami Gambiraananda, while commenting on Sankara bhasya of Gita : By becoming partakers of the remembers of sacrifices, they become freed from all sins. But the unholy persons who cook for themselves, they incur sin.

Bon Giovanni Translation: The righteous who accept for sustenance the leftovers of a sanctified act are freed from all sins; but those who feast for themselves without sanctification are sin itself

Dr. Prasad Translation: The righteous who eat after feeding others are freed from all sins, but the impious who cook food only for themselves without first offering to God, or sharing with others verily eat sin

Prof. S. Radhakrishnan Translation: The good people who eat what is left from the sacrifice are released from all sins but those wicked people who prepare food for their own sake -verily they eat sin.

Visnuswami commentary (This is not translation but commentary translation) (Rudra Vaishnava Sampradaya - Rudra is their first vaishnava guru)
Therefore it can be understood that those humans who perform yagna or worship to the Supreme Lord Krishna are pre-eminent among the human species and not others. This is shown by the word santah meaning they are saintly and virtuous. Those who accept food after first offering it to the Supreme Lord are freed from the sins acquired from the five areas in the home causing harm to any living entity. They are: the mortar and pestle where sometimes extremely small bugs are accidentally killed, the grindstone where microscopic amoebas inside of the seeds are ground to death, the fireplace where sometimes crawling things come into when the fire is out only to be burned to death when the fire is lt, the waterpot where sometimes insects fly into and drown and the broom which while sweeping dirt and dust from the house might also sweep ants and such in such a way as to cause their demise. These are the five areas of harm in the home causing accidental death to harmless creatures as confirmed in the Manu Samhita III. 68. Those sinful wretches who do not first offer what they eat to the Supreme Lord are not freed from any of these sins but they are punished for them and verily day by day they eat only sin. On account of these sins multiplying daily they have no opportunity to attain heaven.

Madhavacharya Commentary Translation (Brahma Madhva Sampradaya): In a very rational way Lord Krishna is praising the saintly performers of yagna by means of worship and offerings and censoring those who fail to perform such yagna. In the previous three verses and this one Lord Krishna has elucidated the science of yagna. The Purusha Sukta in the Rig Veda we see that Brahma the first born is the Purusha offering himself as worship and oblations for the benefit and welfare of creation. By Brahma inaugurating the act of yagna, the perennial principles of existence or dharma were established for all the worlds. Thus by ordaining dharma the Supreme Lord Krishna through his representative Brahma has given mankind the purpose, the objective and the methodology of yagna. One in wisdom should follow in the footsteps of Brahma and offer to the Supreme Lord there very self and essence as an act of worship in yagna

Shrimad Ramanuja's Commentary: Those who prepare food from funds honestly acquired with the sole objective of worshipping the Supreme Lord Krishna who resides as the soul within themselves as well as within all the demi-gods and every living entity; and those who only partake of such duly consecrated food become absolved of all sins accumulated over iniquity subatomic and atomic impending the completion and fulfilment of self realisation of the atma or soul. But those sinful wretches who do not first offer to the Supreme Lord what was gifted to them and instead prepare and eat it appropriating it for theirselves verily eat only sin. The word agham meaning sin denotes their will be grave consequences for such sins. Ignorant of the path to atma-tattva or self realisation of the soul, such degraded persons perpetually eat sinful food insuring a hellish destination in their next life. It should be understood that everything is connected to yagna or worship in this world and the next, from both the point of view of sastra or Vedic scripture and from inference. It should also be clearly understood that the observance of yagna is essential for benefit and welfare of all mankind and that its omission purposefully or accidental is counter productive for the entire human race and is fraught with sinfulness and dire consequences.




Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary (Kumara Vaishnava Sampradaya of Nimbarka):


Therfore those that only eat food that has been offered in yagna or worship are faultless and no other. This Lord Krishna is confirming with the word santah meaning saintly and virtuous. Those who perform yagna become absolved of all sins produced from the daily use of the five utensils in the home used by householders in the cooking and preparing of foods. Such sins are produced from the non-performance of the injunction of yagna and from the performance of the prohibited action. These are serious hindrances in attaining heaven. The five acts if piety performed by the twice born brahmins are mandatory, beginning with Brahma Yagna or Vedic study, offering worship to God, homage to the anscestors, feeding of animals and welcoming and feeding chance guests. These five acts of piety neutralise all sins contracted by the five areas of destuction in the home being the pestle, the grindstone, the fireplace, the waterpot and the broom. Manu Samhita III. 69-71 confirms all sins from these five actions are duly nullified by the five previous acts of piety.




I am not in my home, else, I would had given you translations of Bairaghi Vaikanasa Mutt and Gita press gorakpur

No where I read the idea suggested by you.

"Aavi Avanukku meethi namaku" is truly exist, however, not in Vaishnava Sampradaya, I heard Madurai Atheenam saying it once, hence I suppose it should be the view of Saiva Siddantha school, probably of Meikanda Thevar

If you can give me right citation, it will be of much help. Requesting your favour on this

Jai shree krishna

[ramkish42]

Let me try to add few more translations if possible for 3:13

Sri Aurobindo: The good who eat what is left from the sacrifice, are released from all sin; but evil are they and enjoy sin who cook (the food) for their own sake

V. Jayaram: The saintly persons get relief from all kinds of sins by partaking the food that has been first offered to gods as sacrifice. But those who prepare food for their selfish ends eat but only sins (The term Saintly person seems pleasant substitute for Good used in many translations, and this saint word not to be taken literally, view in braces are mine)

Shri Adivedanta - (This swami belongs to Ramakrishna Mutt, but made good works on Shrimad Ramanujaacharya's works, all are published by Ramakrishna Mutt itself) Pious men who eat the remnants of sacrifices are freed from all sins. But the sinful ones who cook only for their own sake earn only sin
[Pious men is more better than saint word, it seems - my comment]

Shri Abhinavagupta's Commentary - Those who enjoy the pleasures of obects that have come to them on the authority of laws enjoining what is to be necessarily performed; and who enjoy them viewing [the enjoyment] only as a secondary (or intermediate) action and consequently as a subsidiary having no separate purpose; and again those who enjoy the remnant of the necessary action in the form of gratifying the group of the devas of the snese-organs-that residue of food marked with bliss in being firmly established in their own Self - that is to say, those who have mounted upon the Self and are desirous of enjoying objects only as a means to achieve this end - they are freed from all faults of good and bad. Those, who for their own selves etc. : On the other hand, those who believe, under the influence of ignorance, the sheer superficial enjoyment of objects as their final goal, and act with the notion 'We perform this [act] for the sake of ourselves' - those persons alone gain the sin in the form of good and bad.

I will also look into my library if any specific request arises

Jai shree krishna

[ramkish42]

Late thought : Does BG indicates Bhagavatham?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

The virtuous who partake of what is left over after sacrifice are absolved from all sins ~ i.e. when God eats the “life” and you eat the “left over”, then the action is virtuous.

Those sinful ones who cook for the sake of nourishing their body alone eat only in sin ~ i.e. when you eat selfishly, without offering the primary essence of the food to God, then the action is sinful.

:1cool:

[Sudarshan]

Namaste,

The virtuous who partake of what is left over after sacrifice are absolved from all sins ~ i.e. when God eats the “life” and you eat the “left over”, then the action is virtuous.

Those sinful ones who cook for the sake of nourishing their body alone eat only in sin ~ i.e. when you eat selfishly, without offering the primary essence of the food to God, then the action is sinful.

:1cool:

Good explanation. God eating food is anyway symbolic only. The idea is only regarding doership. Eating any form of life (including a plant) is a sin, when done for selfish purpose like preserving of "my" body. However, if God is allowed to eat first, ie you are relinquishing doership of the act and made it a Yajna, the sin does not cling to you. Even animal food is absolved of sin when eaten this way, but animal foods have after effects on the body that are incompatible for Yoga or serious spiritual progress.

Dont we even make a symbolic act even when offering? We place the food before God(the murti or salagrama) in the puja room, and then move our hands from food in the direction of the murti several times?

[ramkish42]

Namaste,

The virtuous who partake of what is left over after sacrifice are absolved from all sins

This is indicated


~ i.e. when God eats the “life” and you eat the “left over”, then the action is virtuous.

Is there a reference to this??

[Ablaze]

Namaste,

The virtuous who partake of what is left over after sacrifice are absolved from all sins ~ i.e. when God eats the “life” and you eat the “left over”, then the action is virtuous.

Those sinful ones who cook for the sake of nourishing their body alone eat only in sin ~ i.e. when you eat selfishly, without offering the primary essence of the food to God, then the action is sinful.

:1cool:

Namaste sarabhanga,

Will a simple prayer do before eating? or does one have to offer the food before a Murti before consuming it?

[Sudarshan]

This is indicated
Is there a reference to this??

It is an interpretation of the term Yajna, which is an offering to devas. In this context, food always given to God before eating it automatically becomes a Yajna and hence liberates you of the sin of action( namely, eating)

[ramkish42]

It is an interpretation of the term Yajna, which is an offering to devas. In this context, food always given to God before eating it automatically becomes a Yajna and hence liberates you of the sin of action( namely, eating)
Yajna and related info are correct.

However, I am searching for details pertaining to God eating life part. Till this date I had seen only Shaiva Siddantins telling this. Is this acceptable to Advaita, Visishtadvaita and other Bhakti Vedantins, if so, can I have text references pls. This need not be scriptual reference, but any other text references

[Sudarshan]

Actually I asked one Srivaishnava priest, and he said the correct version is "adi avanukku amuthu namukku". He did not know the source, however.

[sarabhanga]

Will a simple prayer do before eating? or does one have to offer the food before a Murti before consuming it?
The food which sustains you should be offered to your own Ishtadeva. ;)

[ramkish42]

Actually I asked one Srivaishnava priest, and he said the correct version is "adi avanukku amuthu namukku". He did not know the source, however.

Let me check that statement

[Bhairava108]

I believe the Idea of Vegetarianism came from the early Bhuddist Movement. and was not originally part of the Sanatana Dharmic culture. Both Vedic and Tribal Cultures of India and Nepal Participated In animal and human sacrifice's all throughout history and animal sacrifices are still paracticed today! many tantric cults and Devotees of Kali and other Goddesses still practice this today. in nepal blood sacrifices are still made in the Pashupathinath Temple, which is a Temple of Lord Siva! Blood Sacrifices are also still offered to Lord Bhairava who is the son of Lord Siva and some consider him to also be a manifestation of Lord Siva himself. someone mentioned banning such practices, I dont agree with that at all just because some dont agree with it or are ashamed at such actions being a apart of there culture doesnt mean the right to worship in such a manor should be taken from those who looked past the blood sacrifice itself and see the greater offering! so as far as wether a god like Siva is Vegetarian or non isnt really a question that can be answered, for the God himself is what his Devotee percieves him to be. Lord Siva is everything and all acts. and just for the record I myself am a Vegetarian due to my own personal beliefs, and a personal vow I have taken. But I dont think it says anywhere in Hindu Scripture where Vegetarianism is a must! there may be certain scriptures pertaining to certain paths within Hinduism where Vegetarianism is a must, but that certainly does not pertain to Hinduism as a whole!

Aum Shanti

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

I believe the Idea of Vegetarianism came from the early Bhuddist Movement. and was not originally part of the Sanatana Dharmic culture. Both Vedic and Tribal Cultures of India and Nepal Participated In animal and human sacrifice's all throughout history and animal sacrifices are still paracticed today! Aum Shanti

Namaste Bhairava108,
as mentioned, "Both Vedic and Tribal Cultures of India and Nepal Participated In animal and human sacrifice's all throughout history and animal sacrifices are still practiced today!". This may be so, yet it does not make it right or sattvic.

Much has been discussed on this matter if you choose to take a look:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=572

Gandhi has said, you can tell the quality of a society by how they treat their animals.

pranams,

[Bhairava108]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Bhairava108,
as mentioned, "Both Vedic and Tribal Cultures of India and Nepal Participated In animal and human sacrifice's all throughout history and animal sacrifices are still practiced today!". This may be so, yet it does not make it right or sattvic.

Much has been discussed on this matter if you choose to take a look:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=572

Gandhi has said, you can tell the quality of a society by how they treat their animals.

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan
first of all who says it isn't right? and who has the right to say so? The Gods/Goddesses do not discriminate against how they are worshipped and accept all worship offered with great love and devotion! there are tantric scriptures that state an animal to be offered in sacrifice should be treated as you would treat an honored guest they must be cared for and fed well. and they must not under any circumstances be made to suffer prior to or durring sacrifice. with the use of proper mantras and ritual and under the belief that a sacrificial guests soul will transform into a Higher Being of exsitance is a very honorable and favored offering of many Hindu Dietys! as far as it not being sattvic who cares thats the great thing about Hinduism! its an unorganized religion with many paths and many possabilitys. with many outcomes much like the Universe! just becuase someone doesnt agree or see's only the Killing should truely open there mind and be tolerable of anothers form of worship!

[sm78]

Namaste Bhairava,

Vegetarianism comes from the smritis and not from Buddhism. Present day interpretation of Ahimsa is Buddhist influenced. Vegetarianism is not as much as Ahimsa but is more to do with sattvic diet.

About animal sacrifice you are justifying it based on words like ...

...offered with great love and devotion! ... animal to be offered in sacrifice should be treated as you would treat an honored guest they must be cared for and fed well.I find such explanations difficult to believe as here we are justifying action by a set of emotions. What is love without the corresponding action ??

However Bali is an integral aspect of upasana and bali in form of an animal must some special purpose as it has been prescribed by Shiva himself (however not for all*).

Its just that practice of bali in some parts of india are just driven by superstition and not by scriptural adherence or understanding.

However banning it will be a sick joke, for if someone is concerned with suffering of animals...there are much better places to look around (maybe the supermarket and his own shopping list) than a goat being sacrificed in an obscure temple somewhere.

[atanu]

Namaste all.
At http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/4regs/vegetarian/dharma.htm I founde the following:
"----- Lord Siva is also a great Vaisnava and never eats nonvegetarian food, and the goddess Kali accepts the remnants of food left by Lord Siva. Therefore there is no possibility of her eating flesh or fish. ------

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4:19:36 Purport

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.


Are there pramanas in the scriptures that say that Lord Shiva and other devas are vegetarian?
Regards,
Orlando.


Namaste All,

Typical Srila Prabhupada who makes out Shiva as a mere man. No doubt that Shiva is in form of man when He is an embodied Guru and most Gurus are indeed vegetarian and teach vegetarianism -- not because lord is vegetarian but as a helpful measure for controlling passions of mind. It is one matter to educate people about goodness of vegetarian food in a scientific way and another to relate fairy tales.

It is puerile to imagine that one that is described both as the eater and as the food, has to be categorised as vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Vaisvanara agni, a form of Shiva consumes all. In fact does He not consume flesh to reveal the digambara?

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan
first of all who says it isn't right? and who has the right to say so? ...the Killing should truely open there mind and be tolerable of another's form of worship!

Hello Bhairava,
Let me start by saying I have no intent to alter your approach to your views or change your behaviors. If this is how you chose to pursue your goals , I will stay out of your path.

I am addressing the question you have posed in your post. ( Others on HDF are welcome to add and critique this post as they see fit )

That said, this is a Santana Dharama site, so here , we recognize a few 'experts in the field' on spiritual matters. These experts or exponents of satyam come to us via the 6 systems of Indian philosophy. These systems are considered astika or orthodox. One of the systems that is recognized is the Yoga Philosophy Of Patanjali muni. He points out the unfoldment of ones full potential and how to achieve this unfoldment.

Within his 4 padas, (sections) and sutras ( stitches) he points to Yama and Niyama as part of the 8 fold means or limbs (yoga-angas) to liberation. This yama points out the abstention from injury to life, amongst other things we needn't go into. This is the authority and direction I get to not eat the flesh of other beings.

So, you ask who says so? Patanjali, where does it say so? The Yoga sutra's . Why does it carry any weight? As one following Sanatana Dharm, it is part of the approach to Moksha.

If you chose not to take this approach, you are of free will... For others such as myself, it is part of daily life I subscribe to.

Thank you for your time and for me to address this.

[satay]

Many in India choose to follow the sects that do bali of goats etc. I suppose they can justify this action with the authority and their guru's intrepetation of scriptures.

Yet there is one sect in which it is traditional to eat the flesh of human as a ceramony while being initiated even if one may be vegetarian. Patanjali muni doesn't seem to be holding any authority on some dharmic sects.

For example, for me, I will eventually try to be initiated in that sect (not sure if it is possible) when I take sanyas in the years to come...

[sm78]

No ... each sect has its set of pramanas. Animal sacrifice is prescribed in Tantra in vamachara rituals and for them the authority is struti and tantras. Other shastras are of 2ndary importance.

And neither by sruti nor by tantra can one argue against animal sacrifice. It is purely smartic POV.

However that said, I personally feel that people hardly follow any scripture or POV...for most part it is just a local custom.

[satay]

However that said, I personally feel that people hardly follow any scripture or POV...for most part it is just a local custom.

namaskar singhi,
I couldn't agree more.

For example, in punjab most people what they do where the sastra say to give 'bali' of an animal is that we buy the animal and just present it live to the priest. The priest then says the prayers but doesn't actually kill the animal, just lets him go free.

I have been part of such thing myself. On a personal matter, someone had adviced that I have to offer a goat or bakra so this is what we did. My dad bought the goat with the specific features, color etc. that the priest had asked for, (finding such animal was very hard), then just gave it to the priest for me who then released the goat free. (no killing involved).

However, this might not be in line with what tantra prescribe. I am just saying that that's what the local custom dictated.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Bhairava,

Animal sacrifice and vegetarianism are touchy issues in Hinduism, as you’ve seen already from replies.

I believe the Idea of Vegetarianism came from the early Bhuddist Movement. Yes, sometimes it is so said. Some disagree with this. One theory is that both early Hinduism and Buddhism were influenced by Jainism, which places a lot of emphasis on karma and non-violence more so than either Hinduism or Buddhism.


animal sacrifices are still paracticed today! many tantric cults and Devotees of Kali and other Goddesses still practice this today. Yes, this is definitely true. Animal sacrifices are still practiced today in Indian, Nepali and Indonesian Hinduism. In Indian and Nepali Hinduism, the animal sacrifices that take place today come largely from tribal/folk traditions or from Tantric Shaktism.


in nepal blood sacrifices are still made in the Pashupathinath Temple, which is a Temple of Lord Siva! This is actually not true. There are no animal sacrifices at the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu, as far as I know. This is because Pashupatinath is regulated by the Saiva Agama texts, which prohibit animal sacrifice to Siva.


Blood Sacrifices are also still offered to Lord Bhairava Yes, Lord Bhairava is offered sacrifices when worshipped in the Shakta Tantric manner. Outside of Shakta Tantrism, Lord Bhairava is not offered any meat, but sometimes offerings of alcohol may be made.


Lord Siva is everything and all acts
The Gods/Goddesses do not discriminate against how they are worshipped and accept all worship offered with great love and devotion! Here’s a beautiful story of Kannappa Nayanar (http://www.madhuramurali.org/swamigal/bok/may00_bok.html), the “eye-saint” who used to offer meat to Siva, which you should read if you don’t know it already.


as far as it not being sattvic who cares thats the great thing about Hinduism! its an unorganized religion with many paths and many possabilitys. with many outcomes much like the Universe! just becuase someone doesnt agree or see's only the Killing should truely open there mind and be tolerable of anothers form of worship! Most Hindu sects today are highly influenced by ahimsa which is the first yama principle in the yoga system, so not killing and not eating meat is held very important to becoming a more spiritual person. But, I agree with you, just because I don’t kill and eat animals, doesn’t mean I get to condemn or look down upon others who do.

Bhairava, I would also check out the Shakti thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11) in the Shakta subforum (especially messages 24-32). We also spoke about animal sacrifice there before.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Bhairava108]

Namaste,
Patanjali muni is not a recognized authority figure for every path! only for some! so to use him as an authority that says it isn't right would only refer to those who follow certain paths in which his scripture is recognized! the problem with most faiths and religions today is everyone is concerned with what everyone else is doing. if people would just mind there own business and not interfere with others beliefs or worship the world would seriously be a better place. Unless someone is sacrificing your goat why do you care? and for the record I practice a Vegetarian form of Bali, as per my own personal vows. But I just think its wrong to judge otheres religious actions and to say one form of worship or practice is better then the other! I would be leary of any Guru speaking out against anothers form of worship. there are Guru's that claim many shakta Cults are Evil and Tantra is purely Black magic those Guru's are not at all enlightened in my opinion and they are no better then the Catholic Pope who says Hindu Gods are Demons!

[Kaos]

If an animal is sacrificed with a pure mind, wouldn't it actually be an act of compassion by liberating the animal, perhaps, to be reborn as a human?

Who decides whether one indeed, has a pure mind?

Certainly, not your next-door neighbor, not your local, friendly Catholic priest, not your meditation class teacher, nor your suburban yoga instructor.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

namaskar singhi,
I couldn't agree more.

For example, in punjab most people what they do where the sastra say to give 'bali' of an animal is that we buy the animal and just present it live to the priest. The priest then says the prayers but doesn't actually kill the animal, just lets him go free.

Namaste,

My dear friends, what is the wisdom here? Do you think it is that of the goat? And what of asvamedha yagya? to burn a total horse? What is the wisdom behind these actions?

It is the yajya , the sacrifice of our lower nature, the animal instincts of the human being into the fire to be burnt up , to be cleansed. This is how the kavi of the Rig Veda talked in terms of symbols, sanketa.

I am happy satay that the goat is given to the purohita for the homam or puja and then let free. That too can be the symbol of letting the lower animal instincts go. The yajya is the outer expression of what is to be done on the inner level of consciousness...that of samasta upasana.

If we look to the outward expressions shown with 16 offerings in the puja and done the correct way, that is wonderful. The Mimamsa wisdom of Jaimini leads the way. This is insightful and needed. YET, it is when it is connected with samasta upasana, the power and siddhi is complete.

This is the wisdom that has been dormant in Kai Yuga, this inner yajya and outer yajya, the adhyatma and the adhidaivata.

Along the way the outer actions over took the inner actions. It was easier to go get an animal and place it in the fire. It is the inner agni, the divine inspiration that is be be blazed.

If one chooses to use animals , I cannot stop them, but to do it and not know why and the symbols behind all this? One is missing the value.

All of the Rig veda samhita is of this nature. That we have the opportunity to kindle agni or jatavadas, who presides over the world of matter and is the link to the divine; to touch Indra ( Divine Mind), surupa kratnu, the fashioner of perfect forms. We have the fire part down, we are missing the connection to the Divine Mind.

This is the wisdom of the ancients.


pranams,

[Bhairava108]

If an animal is sacrificed with a pure mind, wouldn't it actually be an act of compassion by liberating the animal, perhaps, to be reborn as a human?

Who decides whether one indeed, has a pure mind?

Certainly, not your next-door neighbor, not your local, friendly Catholic priest, not your meditation class teacher, nor your suburban yoga instructor.

nicely put.

[Bhairava108]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste,

My dear friends, what is the wisdom here? Do you think it is that of the goat? And what of asvamedha yagya? to burn a total horse? What is the wisdom behind these actions?

It is the yajya , the sacrifice of our lower nature, the animal instincts of the human being into the fire to be burnt up , to be cleansed. This is how the kavi of the Rig Veda talked in terms of symbols, sanketa.



so your saying The Vedic peoples didnt perform Animal or Human sacrifices and that the texts containing such events are mere symbolic wording (riddles)and should not be taken literally? so would this refer to all forms of worship mentioned in the vedas or just animal and human sacrifice?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

so your saying The Vedic peoples didnt perform Animal or Human sacrifices and that the texts containing such events are mere symbolic wording (riddles)and should not be taken literally? so would this refer to all forms of worship mentioned in the vedas or just animal and human sacrifice?

Namaste Bhairava,
the discussion is one of mantrartha, or the meaning of the mantra and vedartha. At no time have I Used the word riddles. Symbolism is sanketa. When one looks to the veda's there are multiple views:
A Logical view or nayyayika, mytholgocial meaning itihasika, that of ritual or yajnika, and spiritual or adhyatma.

My point is not contentious ... over time the ritual has overshadowed the spiritual. We humans (not all) think that if one idea is of great import, then all the other ideas are subordinate to it. This holds true in the 6 systems of Indian Philosophy. There are arguments that one is superior to the other, yet what is being offered is a holistic view on Bhuma, this Fullness of Brahman and all 6 are of value, in total.

Like that, I am suggesting, been taught and continue my studies that the ritual by itself, without the inner yajya, is incomplete.

You mention 'all forms of worship mentioned in the vedas'. When you say veda's are you suggesting samhita's, brahmana's, aranyaka's and upanishad's?

I Mention this because any time I use ALL or NEVER , there are always exceptions yes? If so , I am still working through all these bodies of information. So hold that thought and I will get back to you as I cannot answer honestly to 'ALL'. And , another point of interest, my knowledge is still one legged - I am not atma saksatkara (Self Realized), so to say ALL until this is the case is ignorance in the making.

Yet if I stand on the shoulders of a few muni's I believe are more advanced in the study of this matter, you may want to defer your question to them via their insights ( via their writing). Sri Aurobindo is a good source, as is TV Kapali Shastry, and exponents of these people are RL Kashyap, and S.Shankaranarayanan. Clearly they point to enlightened muni's, rishi, kavi of the vedic period that used symbols for their meaning and lived yama and niyama to the fullest, without harm. If others have viewed this wisdom in a different light ( that of animal sacrifice) that I cannot talk to, will have no part of it, and cannot be convienced that this is of value to ones spiritual advancement.

dhanyavadah,

[Kaos]

Not that I personally take part nor would I condone the killing of animals for sacrifice for whatever "religious" merit it is supposed to bring about.

If one wants to cultivate a positive virtue such as compassion, then, refraining from intentional killing of animals, inflicting suffering on living beings, even eating meat is no doubt, a noble path to follow.

However, Tantric rituals, is a manifestation of a universal quest for gnosis that is as old as humanity itself.

If a certain culture, group of people, find answers to their search for the meaning of life, in a certain way, in this context, the sacrifice of animals, who am I to say otherwise...

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Bhairava,




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.

Brahmanas, and especially Yogins, MUST follow Yamaniyama.

Occasionally eating sanctified flesh in the strictly controlled performance of a sacrificial offering is traditionally permitted. But, to suggest that this allows Brahmanas and Yogins to adopt a generally non-vegetarian diet without compromising their spiritual development is absurd!

See also: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=8328&postcount=20

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
if people would just mind there own business and not interfere with others beliefs or worship the world would seriously be a better place. Unless someone is sacrificing your goat why do you care?

Hello Bhaurava (et .al)
If I look to the posts on this matter, I for one, have not asked you to curtail your actions. You are responsible for what you chose to do.

A finer point... you say 'Unless someone is sacrificing your goat why do you care?'

Let me see if I can offer a point of view. I have been taught and experience We as humans own nothing, it is all on loan to us from the Supreme. Becasue I paid for the goat , it is on loan to me. I did not create the 5 tattvas that make up this animal, I have no right to decide its death. This is not to antagonize you, just to have you consider a different point of view.

Last point - Why would one care about another's goat or cow? Your answer to this in the BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD, Madhu Brahmana. [ Madhu is ~ sweet or honey-like ]. This Upanishad states Ayam eva sa yo'ayam atma: THAT is this; this is THAT then goes on to say Abahyam ayam atma Brahma or THIS is verily your own SELF.

What is different in this Upanishad? It discusses this interconnectedness of everything. What I find most profound is that it outlines the following principles, really experiences of a jivanmukti ( ~ fully realized being )

When you touch anything, you are touching everything
Everything is vitally connectedSo, that which connects the WHOLE to the part and the part the WHOLE is Purusha ( or Purushottma or Supreme Purusha). That is, the individual (you, me) are not constitutionally separate form the WHOLE, and the WHOLE is correlated with every other thing in creation.

My point Bhairava, so is the goat, and the cow, and the fire they are placed.

The actions of people, individuals and societies affect us all. Even the things I do behind my door at home. And what you choose to do has an effect on us all. This is the wisdom of the Upanishads from realized souls.

We see diversity, and individual things, disconnected. This is the ignorance of avidya, before Moksha. So, one cares of others, albeit human or animal, or that matter trees and insects, when one understands no action stands independent on its own.

This is my orientation and a key premise behind Yama & Niyama.

[Kaos]

Someone pointed out that "Brahmanas and Yogins to adopt a generally non-vegetarian diet without compromising their spiritual development is absurd!"

While it is true that yogins need to follow certain requirements when it comes to diet, it is equally absurd to think that following a strictly vegetarian diet is the only way to practice Dharma.

For the same reason that it is absurd and ridiculous to think that sitting trying to gain samadhi, is the only way to practice Dharma.

Being a vegetarian is an ideal. A very noble ideal indeed.
However, like someone in this thread has mentioned along the lines that "everything is connected to everything else", that is very true.

The vegetarian deer is connected to the carnivorous lion.
It is not the nature of the deer to be carnivorous, nor is it the nature of the lion to be vegetarian.

Insisting that the natural way of things conform to our ideals of what the WHOLE should appear to be, is going against the true nature of Reality.

It is like insisting that there should be only one level of existence, the "gods realm" for instance, and there should be no animal realm, etc.

[Bhairava108]

Namaste Yajvan,

all I have been trying to say here is that someone condeming anothers form of worship is direct interference to that persons path! a sin in and of it self! if you dont agree great! thats good not everyone is meant to see the truth of every path! if we were the whole world would be practiceing the same one religion. another thing I would like to point out is that the very vast Umbrella of Hinduism, despite different customs forms of worship different ways to reach Moksha(liberation)etc... Hinduism as a whole is still one family!! and you trying to point out all that is wrong with animal sacrifice and subconciously your totally trying to convince me that it is wrong. your inadvertantly condeming these paths which in and of itself is harmful! whether you agree or not it is still part of the Hindu family! if it were not meant to be it would not be! people wonder why Hindu's in vast numbers are Converting to christianity! well one of the reasons is becuase other Hindu's like yourself are condeming the paths they are on, condeming there customs and rituals being called evil and superstitious so her come the christian missionarys who tell them the same thing and so they convert to "end there evil ways" you should use your obvious vast knowledge of Sanatana Dharma to help your fellow Brothers and Sisters not turn them away by condeming there traditions and rituals and thats what attitudes like yours is doing. I am not in anyway trying to offend you I promise! but seriously just cause you dont agree doesnt mean it is not right! I was very dissapointed in India as a country when I read articles from India news sources that some states have banned Animal Sacrifices includeing the Home of Kalighat becuase "it might not be appropriate for the foriegn tourists to witness such an act" first of all when did foriegn tourists become priority in Hindu Temples? most of which im sure are not even Hindu. its lame that Hindus in India are allowing there government to basically destroy ancient traditions. its things like this that make me glad I live in America where under the constitution concerning the freedom of religion Animal sacrifice is permitted.

[Kaos]

Excellent post, Bhairava. I certainly agree.





So, one cares of others, albeit human or animal, or that matter trees and insects, when one understands no action stands independent on its own.



Since someone claimed "we are all connected", that is very true. If someone truly, deeply believes that vegetarianism, pursuit of compassion, non-violence and such will bring about perfect world peace and happiness, then typing words on a computer on an Internet message board is not sufficient.

The all-compassionate, peace loving, strict vegetarian should also stop paying his/her government taxes, because taxes support a military system which by it's nature is an instrument of death and destruction. Taxes also support a system of government that more often than not, breeds all forms of un-compassionate acts, such as war, greed, etc. all for the common good of course. Whatever that means.

The strict vegetarian should even stop eating plants and vegetables and fruits, because the very acts themselves of harvesting and cooking the vegetables to eat has resulted in the death of numerous living beings.

Trying to mess with the order of Nature to support some "politically correct" fad or to "paint a rosier" image for the international media to consume is going against the nature of things.

It is going against Reality itself.

[atanu]

Excellent post, Bhairava. I certainly agree.

Since someone claimed "we are all connected", that is very true. If someone truly, deeply believes that vegetarianism, pursuit of compassion, non-violence and such will bring about perfect world peace and happiness, then typing words on a computer on an Internet message board is not sufficient.

The all-compassionate, peace loving, strict vegetarian should also stop paying his/her government taxes, because taxes support a military system which by it's nature is an instrument of death and destruction. Taxes also support a system of government that more often than not, breeds all forms of un-compassionate acts, such as war, greed, etc. all for the common good of course. Whatever that means.

The strict vegetarian should even stop eating plants and vegetables and fruits, because the very acts themselves of harvesting and cooking the vegetables to eat has resulted in the death of numerous living beings.

Trying to mess with the order of Nature to support some "politically correct" fad or to "paint a rosier" image for the international media to consume is going against the nature of things.

It is going against Reality itself.


I think the above has very strong rational logic.

I think more than caring for the environment and others, one must first care for the self. Since, the subtle essence of food is known to become the mind, a sadhaka may choose food that helps mitigate distraction and asuric flights of the thoughts. Food that helps preserve a calm mind should be chosen.

Prescriptions definitely vary according to cultural and climatic differences, though most gurus do suggest vegetarian food (at least in India). Though Swami Vivekananda suggested non-vegetarian food for indians to shake us out of stupor.


But, I note that the original question was, "Is Lord Shiva vegetarian?And the other devas?"

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

all I have been trying to say here is that someone condeming anothers form of worship is direct interference to that persons path! Hinduism as a whole is still one family!! and you trying to point out all that is wrong with animal sacrifice and subconciously your totally trying to convince me that it is wrong. .

Namaste Bhairava,

First , no condeming from me. What I am pointing out is what the wise say about this matter. Never once, ( please review all my posts) did I inform you to stop, cease or desist your actions... the bottom line is you take responsibility for your actions, and sadhana, I am not. It is clear that even krsna suggest it is unwise to take on the dharma of another. Leave one to their own dharma. I respect that instruction from Kesava.

What I did share with you is my POV and how I choose to make decisions on this matter. This is what the forum is for , sharing of ideas.

This , for me, will be the end of the conversation as it bares little fruit. I undersand your POV and 'got it'. I said what I thought was relevent. I also thought others gave good opinions too... you too Bhairava, please do not feel slighted.

pranams,

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

I think the above has very strong rational logic.

I think more than caring for the environment and others, one must first care for the self. Since, the subtle essence of food is known to become the mind, a sadhaka may choose food that helps mitigate distraction and asuric flights of the thoughts. Food that helps preserve a calm mind should be chosen.

Om

Namaste Atanu,
Excellent post. the indiviual is the unit of society. Collectively they [we] make up society's values, directions, etc. When we work on our selves, this is key. Thank your for bringing this forward.



Satyanna pramaditavyam
Dharmanna pramaditavyam
Kusalanna pramaditavyam
Never swerve away from Truth
never swerve away from duty
never neglect your welfare; swerve
not from any act for the protection of yourself
Taittiriya Uanishad 1.11.1

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Excellent post, Bhairava. I certainly agree.




Since someone claimed "we are all connected", that is very true. If someone truly, deeply believes that vegetarianism, pursuit of compassion, non-violence and such will bring about perfect world peace and happiness, then typing words on a computer on an Internet message board is not sufficient..

Namaste Kaos,
Reasonable words said... and lets add, what does the gardener do? of what to do with the insects that eats his crops. Surely this is a conundrum for all that practice yamaniyama to it's fullest degree.

And the lover of God's gift in the garden of flowers, where one admires His work in smells, colors, and stems. The gardener is the Kashatriya [some spell ksatriya] protecting the innocent flower and the beauty of the bushes and shrubs.

We have surely got ourselves into a pickle on deciding what actions to take, what are life supporting and life limiting.


pranams

[sarabhanga]

While it is true that yogins need to follow certain requirements when it comes to diet, it is equally absurd to think that following a strictly vegetarian diet is the only way to practice Dharma.

For the same reason that it is absurd and ridiculous to think that sitting trying to gain samadhi, is the only way to practice Dharma.

Namaste Kaos,

Has anyone suggested that strict vegetarianism is absolutely required for all Hindus?

Has anyone suggested that the practice of yoga is absolutely required for all Hindus?




Insisting that the natural way of things conform to our ideals of what the WHOLE should appear to be, is going against the true nature of Reality.

It is like insisting that there should be only one level of existence, the "gods realm" for instance, and there should be no animal realm, etc.

Perhaps I have missed something, but has anyone here made such restrictive demands?

Perhaps you have not checked the link previously given to the full context of my comments on Ahimsa?




Ahimsa is “without harm” or “without injury” ~ and thus, “with care” or “with benefit”.

In practice, Ahimsa is “harm minimization” and “benefit maximization” ~ i.e. “for the greater good”.

Specific destructive or harmful actions are sanctioned when the aim is ultimately constructive and generally beneficial.

The practical advice of Ahimsa is simply to “look before you leap”, and how far you must look and how carefully, depends on how far and with how much certainty you wish to leap.

See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=8328&postcount=20

[Kaos]

Namaste Kaos,

Has anyone suggested that strict vegetarianism is absolutely required for all Hindus?

Has anyone suggested that the practice of yoga is absolutely required for all Hindus?


Perhaps I have missed something, but has anyone here made such restrictive demands?

Perhaps you have not checked the link previously given to the full context of my comments on Ahimsa?


See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=8328&postcount=20


Namaskar sarabhanga,

Yes, indeed, strict vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement and yoga practice is not absolutely required for all Hindus.

Therefore, if one looks deep down, on an ontological sense, there is no difference between being vegetarian and not being vegetarian. Practicing yoga and not practicing yoga.

In the Bhagavad-gita, it says: pitaham asya jagatah: every living entity is eternally a member of the Lord's family. Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, (9.29), samo 'ham sarva-bhutesu na me dvesyo 'sti na priyah: 'I am equal to everyone. None is My enemy, and no one is My special friend.'

Only when one is pursuing a sattvic (purification) lifestyle, is vegetarianism recommended.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Lord Shiva is often depicted as a hunter so He is obviously not a vegetarian. As for other devas and devis, Kali is honored with sacrfices of goats and chickens in temples all over India and Nepal so She is obivously not a vegetarian either. Rama and Krishna, because they were kshatriyas and also because the holy texts mention their eating habits also ate meat. Lord Murugan, as He is the god of war, also must be a meat-eater and because of the fact that one of the penances to be undertaken in His name is to abstain from meat for a certain period of time, it is again evident that He knows and enjoys the taste of meat. I earlier mentioned Rama and Krishna being meat-eaters and even Buddha ate meat (many say He died of food poisoning from some bad pork), so logic tells us that Lord Vishnu must also eat meat even though many fundamentalist brahmins would never offer meat, alcohol, roots, spices, etc. to Him. As for the other devas, it is very likely that they all eat meat even though Hindus do not offer meat to them since vegetarianism and other philosophies such as the kosher and halal food movements that restrict the types of food that people eat were created entirely by human beings despite their claims of supernatural origin.

[dhruva023]

Lord Shiva is often depicted as a hunter so He is obviously not a vegetarian. As for other devas and devis, Kali is honored with sacrfices of goats and chickens in temples all over India and Nepal so She is obivously not a vegetarian either. Rama and Krishna, because they were kshatriyas and also because the holy texts mention their eating habits also ate meat. Lord Murugan, as He is the god of war, also must be a meat-eater and because of the fact that one of the penances to be undertaken in His name is to abstain from meat for a certain period of time, it is again evident that He knows and enjoys the taste of meat. I earlier mentioned Rama and Krishna being meat-eaters and even Buddha ate meat (many say He died of food poisoning from some bad pork), so logic tells us that Lord Vishnu must also eat meat even though many fundamentalist brahmins would never offer meat, alcohol, roots, spices, etc. to Him. As for the other devas, it is very likely that they all eat meat even though Hindus do not offer meat to them since vegetarianism and other philosophies such as the kosher and halal food movements that restrict the types of food that people eat were created entirely by human beings despite their claims of supernatural origin.

What habits are you talking about?

[OmSriShivaShakti]

"[Rama:] 'I shall live in the forest for fourteen years abstaining from animal food (meat) and living on tuberous roots and fruits like unto the ascetics. The king shall confer upon Bharata the heir-apparentship and shall banish me as an ascetic into the forest. And I shall live in that solitary forest for eight and six years, feasting on roots, and fruits and performing the duties of a hermit.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. I. p.246]."

He clearly mentions having to abstain from animal food (meat).

[dhruva023]

Hello OmSriShivaShakti, Thank You for your replay. Perhaps, you should have chosen better source to backup your claim. Here is what you have written.


"[Rama:] 'I shall live in the forest for fourteen years abstaining from animal food (meat) and living on tuberous roots and fruits like unto the ascetics. The king shall confer upon Bharata the heir-apparentship and shall banish me as an ascetic into the forest. And I shall live in that solitary forest for eight and six years, feasting on roots, and fruits and performing the duties of a hermit.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. I. p.246]."

And here is your source.
http://india30.tripod.com/hedonistic.htm

[QUOTE]
I. Non-vegetarian Rama

Rama's non-vegetarian inclinations are apparent early in the Valmiki Ramayana; in Ayodhyakanda sarga 20, he laments to his mom Kausalya about his imminent exile from the kingdom into the forest (due to his wicked co-mom Kaikeyi's plot) during which he would be abstaining from meat as is served at the palace:

"[Rama:] 'I shall live in the forest for fourteen years abstaining from animal food and living on tuberous roots and fruits like unto the ascetics. The king shall confer upon Bharata the heir-apparentship and shall banish me as an ascetic into the forest. And I shall live in that solitary forest for eight and six years, feasting on roots, and fruits and performing the duties of a hermit.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. I. p.246].

However, Rama resumes his meat-consumption (and alcohol-consumption) upon returning to Ayodhya after his coronation, as revealed in the next quote.


The only thing that you have changed is added the word “meat”. Even the formatting is same. Did you even try to authenticate your source. Here is the link of their home page.http://india30.tripod.com/ As you can see the website clearly is an anti-hindu.

Now lets talk about the verse that you have mentioned.

चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने ।
मधु मूल फलैः जीवन् हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् ॥२-२०-२९॥

Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,
subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal
fare


Although I have studied Sanskrit for 2 years, I couldn’t really translate it, so this is not my translation. But it seems ok to me.
Don't take this as a personal attack, The only reason I am replaying is that the thread should not have some unauthenticated data hanging at the end.

[atanu]

Now lets talk about the verse that you have mentioned.

चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने ।
मधु मूल फलैः जीवन् हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् ॥२-२०-२९॥

Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,
subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal
fare.

Namaste Dhruva,

I congratulate and laud your effort. But for sake of truth, let me point out that हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् does indicate "a hermits life abstaining from amisham (non vegetarian)"

I am a vegetarian and suggest to all to be so. But I do not think that whole of Hindu society was niramish.

Secondly, asking whether Lord Shiva is vegetarian or non-vegetarian is kind of ignorance. Shiva is agni -- sarvabhuk -- the universal eater. Opposed to shiva as fire is shiva as Soma -- the bliss -- the universal food. Shiva as Atman-Brahman, is however, neither an eater nor eaten.


To decide to be vegetarian is a good choice -- to purify oneself. The funny part is that the hedonistics do not see this noble intent in Rama but rationalise eating of non-vegetarian food saying that Rama was so.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Abdul]

Did you know that a large number of muslims are also vegetarians? Though I am a muslim, somehow I am attracted to the lingam. I like the idea that since God is the supreme eater the question being asked is kind of funny. Comical.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Thank you dhruva023.

And atanu, the argument could also be made that the choice of vegetarianism among so many Hindus is an austerity similar to abstaining from alcohol, sleeping on hard floors, etc. undertaken by Hindus to purify themselves of desire since we who are meat-eaters know how much tastier meat is than vegetarian food.

[satay]

namaskar,


since we who are meat-eaters know how much tastier meat is than vegetarian food.

Not sure what you are talking about meat being tastier. I had been a meat eater most of all life until about four years ago. I don't think 'meat' is tastier than vegetables. It's how you cook them both that makes the difference. How can 'meat' be more tasty than a vegetable? Have you ever tasted meat without seasoning? Because I have tasted raw vegetables and they are might tasty.

That said, this topic has been beaten to death at HDF.

[Spiritualseeker]

isnt Lord Shiva the Lord of the Universe. He does not need sustanance. He is beyond it.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

True, but meat is cooked in different ways than vegetables which lends to its better taste. But anyway, this isn't a food-related website and its clear that neither of us is going to budge on this.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Very true, Spiritualseeker, He is beyond nourishment which is why this whole debate on non-veg vs. veg food is pointless.

[satay]

True, but meat is cooked in different ways than vegetables which lends to its better taste. But anyway, this isn't a food-related website and its clear that neither of us is going to budge on this.

meat is better in taste no, but different taste than vegetables, yes.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


But for sake of truth, let me point out that हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् does indicate "a hermits life abstaining from amisham (non vegetarian)"

I am a vegetarian and suggest to all to be so. But I do not think that whole of Hindu society was niramish.


Om Namah Shivaya

If we are to consider the truth, then let us reflect on it.
We are discussing Lord Ram of Raghu kul, in the lineage of sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pigeon.
I would like to quote from manu dharmasashtra who is Ram's own ancestor.
Chapter V

48. 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.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. 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).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

53. He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

To eat the flesh of animals for one's own enjoyment or nutrition is the greatest sin. Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To claim that he engaged in sinful conduct is foolish.

So I have to question the verse quoted or its interpretation, let’s not forget there are many version of Valmiki Ramayan and on top of it interpolation of the scriptures we know has happened.
The following references from the Valmiki Ramayana are provided by H.K. Susarla.

chaturdasha hi varShaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |

ka.mdamuulaphalairjiivan hitvaa munivadaamiSham || raa 2.20.29 |

Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,
subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal
fare.

There was no need for him to give up meat, forest would have given him ample opportunity so I am happy with above translation.
It is not Amishaam(आमिषम् ) in the in 2-20-29 it is munivadaamiSham(ascetics= munis).."Like munis"

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste,

That is a good reply from you, Ganeshprasad ji. In fact, the verse quoted in Atanu's post in reply to OSS's post too doesn't say that Lord Rama ate meat.

Dhruva has correctly noted how such verses are extrapolated to the extremes ! With the above verse it extrapolated that he did not only ate meat but also indulged in taking alcohol !

Evil mind tries to see evil even in those places where there is none !!

OM

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

To eat the flesh of animals for one's own enjoyment or nutrition is the greatest sin. Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To claim that he engaged in sinful conduct is foolish.

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

I agree and that is what I indicated in my view above also. Hedonistics guess about what was but do not point out the noble decision, which was an example for all to follow.




chaturdasha hi varShaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |

ka.mdamuulaphalairjiivan hitvaa munivadaamiSham || raa 2.20.29 |

Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,
subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal
fare.

There was no need for him to give up meat, forest would have given him ample opportunity so I am happy with above translation.
It is not Amishaam(आमिषम् ) in the in 2-20-29 it is munivadaamiSham(ascetics= munis).."Like munis"

Jai Shree Krishna

I am totally neutral with both translations. But 'amisham' pertains mainly to 'flesh'. If one translates that as Royal fare, that also is fine with me. The point is austerity -- mainly freeing oneself from the bondage of senses; and also obtaining many other benefits, as you have pointed out.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

With Respect to Tripod portal


Namaste,
Evil mind tries to see evil even in those places where there is none !!

OM

Namaste Devotee,

You are correct. Scripture, which is the Word (and thus the Universe) is expanded (or seen sprouting) in different fashion by different minds. Scripture is actually the blueprint/master design of sprouting of Universe and its going back into mind. Scripture records how it happens. It should be true of Bible and Koran also.

This world is nothing but the word as contained in the Veda.

For example, Aswamedha Yagna is killing of Mind -- the fast moving horse, which becomes the Universe. Asvamedha puts a stop to all these conceptions. But how some people will use the text of the asvamedha? To score a point against Hinduism, as if.

I agree with TTA on this to a large extent. Without any comprehension of Self and its kalpa taru Pragnya, many western authors rarely have any spiritual insight. With respect to their own scripture they are almost blind and equate Black Sea (mentioned in book of Isaiah) with physical Black sea. They equate Zion, which is an abode of everlasting bliss and peace, with a mere piece of land. What will they do to Veda?

On the other hand, to see literal meaning in Bible or Koran (by us Hindus in anger and by some western-hindus) may also be wrong.

I re-echo what simex said. One can hardly comprehend scripture literally.

Rig 1.164. 39 The rks exist in the imperishable, beyond vyoman (space) where all gods abide. He who does not know the Imperishable, what can he accomplish with the hymn? Those alone who know it sit collected.


Om Namah Shivaya

[Znanna]

On the other hand, to see literal meaning in Bible or Koran (by us Hindus in anger and by some western-hindus) may also be wrong.

I re-echo what simex said. One can hardly comprehend scripture literally.

Rig 1.164. 39 The rks exist in the imperishable, beyond vyoman (space) where all gods abide. He who does not know the Imperishable, what can he accomplish with the hymn? Those alone who know it sit collected.




Namaste,

The "Christians" here in the US (and, I guess elsewhere due to the weed-like proliferation of evangelical missionaries) believe that the Bible *is* to be considered literal Word, and then proceed to argue about which translation or version is correct!

There are debates about whether Catholics or Mormans are even to be considered "Christian" due to their versions of the Scripture. And, there are even more debates about whether the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" implies that "Jesus = God" or that "Jesus does not equal God" (and no debates about that debate, heh).

They just don't get the paradox of the ONE and MANY and being the SAME.

OM



ZN

[haribhakta]

Lord Shiva is completely vegetarian