PDA

View Full Version : Eating Meat/ Being a Brahmin



mblova
18 September 2007, 09:02 AM
So guys I'm Back. I spent 2 months in India sweating and eating.
I got my yagnopavit done there and this spiked my curiosity. I eat meat, but at the same time my family practices being brahmins(they eat meat). I'v very curious to know what the scriptures say about this. I have no experience with the scriptures and would appreciate a place where i could start reading about this issue.

Also, i do not eat meat on tuesdays and thursdays. I'm trying to search for a reason for this also. All help would be appreciated.

Eastern Mind
18 September 2007, 03:30 PM
I'll just give my personal experience with being vegetarian, all scriptures aside. I became a vegetarian firstly for health purposes, and because my conscience at the time (I was about 18..so that was some 36 years ago.) At first, it was an experiment to see how I felt, healthwise. I definitely felt better, lighter, and my digestive system seemed to agree with it. So I stuck it out, despite being in Western Canada, Alberta to be specific, a definite meat eater's paradise. It wasn't hard, like giving up smoking. You can still eat, satisfy hunger, and don't worry about 'Where will I get my protein, and all that. That's just plain silly. The average North American diet of meat has about 300 - 400% of your daily protein requirement. Its a relatively minor adjustment. On the conscience level, my family were hunters. At age 16, I shot a deer. That was a tremendously negative experience, to watch that poor creature die and know that I was the cause. I gave the gun back to my father who had purchased it for me somewhat to his disappointment, and vowed to take up a camera instead, which I never got around to. There were some very awkward moments, especially at family gatherings, being the odd man out, but my conscience was stronger than that type of loyalty. I realised a man has to do what a man has to do. Only later did I come to know of the many other reasons. I would recommend reading "How to Win an Argument with a meat eater" for all the other reasons. In the end, its up to you and you alone. I don't hate meat eaters, just tolerate their freedom of choice, although obviously I think its a poor choice. Regarding scripture, I know several people who point to isolated passages they use to defend their meat eating, so I don't believe you will find your answer within scripture, but you will find it within yourself. Aum Namashivaya

yajvan
18 September 2007, 04:30 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


So guys I'm Back. I spent 2 months in India sweating and eating.
I got my yagnopavit done there and this spiked my curiosity. I eat meat, but at the same time my family practices being brahmins(they eat meat). I'v very curious to know what the scriptures say about this. I have no experience with the scriptures and would appreciate a place where i could start reading about this issue.

Also, i do not eat meat on tuesdays and thursdays. I'm trying to search for a reason for this also. All help would be appreciated.

Namaste and hello mblova,
There is a wealth of knowledge on this HDF post - take a look.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=572

Then you may want to poke around and ask more questions.

regards and pranams,

saidevo
18 September 2007, 08:40 PM
Vegetarian food is easy to disgest. Actually one should not drink water during the course of a meal; only a half hour later; this is to induce natural secretion of saliva and the gastric juices that cause the digestion. Meat eaters always have wine or other form of alcohol at hand to 'wash it down' and the quantity of alcohol in the stomach dilutes the juices and imposes a heavy strain on the digesting mechanism.

Anyway, here is a Kali Yuga brahman, who proudly declares partaking a meaty dinner that followed his upanayanam, let us welcome him. Does he sip water or wine for 'Achamanam' for his Sandhya Vandanam?

mblova, I have nothing against you personally; it is your attitude of slighting the Hindu tradition and making a show of it that I seek to criticize. Your eating meat or drinking wine is a personal thing, but making a show of it is certainly not.

vcindiana
18 September 2007, 09:40 PM
Your eating meat or drinking wine is a personal thing, but making a show of it is certainly not.

Well said.... Sai

It may not matter much what goes in through our mouths but it does matter what comes out of our mouths (mind)

saidevo
19 September 2007, 01:26 AM
Hello vcindiana,

You have said it even better! Thank you for sharing my view.

Hiwaunis
22 September 2007, 04:18 PM
So guys I'm Back. I spent 2 months in India sweating and eating.
I got my yagnopavit done there and this spiked my curiosity. I eat meat, but at the same time my family practices being brahmins(they eat meat). I'v very curious to know what the scriptures say about this. I have no experience with the scriptures and would appreciate a place where i could start reading about this issue.

Also, i do not eat meat on tuesdays and thursdays. I'm trying to search for a reason for this also. All help would be appreciated.

Om Shanti,
If you and your family eat meat what is it that makes you a Brahmin? Is this a position similiar to being a US judge, once you get it is yours no matter what?

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Eastern Mind
22 September 2007, 05:27 PM
mblova, and others..Aum Ganesha..
I have no idea how your brahmin family could have gotten into meat eating. Here are some possibilities:
During the British rule, as you know, indentured labour was spread all over.. Africa, Guyana, Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad etc. In these new places, some of the Indian culture would be and was lost. Perhaps vegetarianism was one of those things. Then there is poverty. Try offering a peace of meat to a small child who is hungry. See if he breaks his 'vegetarian' vows. Here in the west I know several Brahmins who eat meat. (Not temple brahmins, but ones who have been taken over subconsciously by the west, and its set of ideas.. i.e. they're westernised, and no longer represent Hinduism well.) Sometimes this happened a long time ago. Even now, let alone 30 years ago, remaining vegetarian within some smaller communities would have been extremely difficult. There may not have been an Indian shop around for 100s of miles. So somewhat forgetting their roots, and for survival, or to get along better in their workplace (When in Rome...) some took up meat eating. I think this is a forgivable thing. I don't know mblova's history in this regard, so am unable to judge. Better to work on changing the person now in a non-condescending way, than to offer criticism. I know many of my Hindu friends (non Brahmin) who became meat eaters when they first arrived here in Canada. Some have returned to vegetarianism, others haven't (yet). I also am a bit familiar with Mauritius Hindus who have chosen to switch back once a swami or two came and pointed it out to them. Some of the indentured labour there was illiterate, not even so many generations back.
I personally was non-vegetarian the first 18 years of my life. Do I hate myself for it? No. I forgive myself, as that was a personal karma blinded by the anava, and I did grow out of it. Not knowing mblova's history, it seems to me that some here are awfully quick to criticise. Vegetarians can also succumb to 'fundamentalism'. It goes outside Hinduism's spirit of tolerance for me. I know some awfully mean-spirited vegetarians and I also know some terribly nice tolerant meat eaters. Our characters go beyond that.
Aum Namshivaya

Hiwaunis
22 September 2007, 10:40 PM
Om Shanti,
If you and your family eat meat what is it that makes you a Brahmin? Is this a position similiar to being a US judge, once you get it is yours no matter what?

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Om Shanti Mblova,
Please don't think that I am criticizing you but I've always thought Brahmins were the "creme of the crop" who followed all the rules and set the example for others to follow.

Please forgive my ignorance but what is a yagnopavit?

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

mblova
25 September 2007, 07:15 PM
mblova, I have nothing against you personally; it is your attitude of slighting the Hindu tradition and making a show of it that I seek to criticize. Your eating meat or drinking wine is a personal thing, but making a show of it is certainly not.



Well said, I dont understand what you mean by saying "making a show of it". My mother and her brother have given up meat. They have their various reasons, but my family continues to eat meat. I am simply searching for knowledge so that i am able to form my own thoughts and opinions.

mblova
25 September 2007, 07:17 PM
Om Shanti,
If you and your family eat meat what is it that makes you a Brahmin? Is this a position similiar to being a US judge, once you get it is yours no matter what?

Namaste,
Hiwaunis



Hiwaunis,

This is a question that i am currently trying to answer as well.

mblova
25 September 2007, 07:20 PM
mblova, and others..Aum Ganesha..
I have no idea how your brahmin family could have gotten into meat eating. Here are some possibilities:
During the British rule, as you know, indentured labour was spread all over.. Africa, Guyana, Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad etc. In these new places, some of the Indian culture would be and was lost. Perhaps vegetarianism was one of those things. Then there is poverty. Try offering a peace of meat to a small child who is hungry. See if he breaks his 'vegetarian' vows. Here in the west I know several Brahmins who eat meat. (Not temple brahmins, but ones who have been taken over subconsciously by the west, and its set of ideas.. i.e. they're westernised, and no longer represent Hinduism well.) Sometimes this happened a long time ago. Even now, let alone 30 years ago, remaining vegetarian within some smaller communities would have been extremely difficult. There may not have been an Indian shop around for 100s of miles. So somewhat forgetting their roots, and for survival, or to get along better in their workplace (When in Rome...) some took up meat eating. I think this is a forgivable thing. I don't know mblova's history in this regard, so am unable to judge. Better to work on changing the person now in a non-condescending way, than to offer criticism. I know many of my Hindu friends (non Brahmin) who became meat eaters when they first arrived here in Canada. Some have returned to vegetarianism, others haven't (yet). I also am a bit familiar with Mauritius Hindus who have chosen to switch back once a swami or two came and pointed it out to them. Some of the indentured labour there was illiterate, not even so many generations back.
I personally was non-vegetarian the first 18 years of my life. Do I hate myself for it? No. I forgive myself, as that was a personal karma blinded by the anava, and I did grow out of it. Not knowing mblova's history, it seems to me that some here are awfully quick to criticise. Vegetarians can also succumb to 'fundamentalism'. It goes outside Hinduism's spirit of tolerance for me. I know some awfully mean-spirited vegetarians and I also know some terribly nice tolerant meat eaters. Our characters go beyond that.
Aum Namshivaya

I have grown up eating meat, but also following Hindu traditions, i.e. not eating meat on tuesdays and thursdays, fasting on certain days, and not eating meat for a period of 10 days. My parents are from kashmir, so i hope that gives some sort of background info.
any help would be appreciated.

Eastern Mind
25 September 2007, 08:08 PM
mblova: I no nothing at all about the local customs in Kashmir. But you should know that in the rest of the Hindu world (I would estimate at lest 90% probably closer to 99%) Brahmins (the temple type) do not eat meat at all. But I cannot say for Kashmir. In Kashmir Saivism (Muktananda and others) meat would not be allowed. In much of India (70%?) Hindus period don't eat meat. Its basically a fundamental tenet of the religion outside of your region. We all suffer from ethnocentricity (village mentality) I.E - We like to think the rest of the world thinks the way we do. This is very natural. We are all trained by our own experiences, so whatever the local experience, that's what you know. I hope this helps a bit. Aum Namashivaya

Nuno Matos
25 September 2007, 08:39 PM
Namaste mblova



I don't know the origin of your brahman families but i know according to an article on wikipedia that the saraswati brahmins eat at least some fish, here goes the article that supports what i am saying.

Quoting from Wikipedia;"
Saraswat Cuisine is the mainstay of Saraswat Brahmins on the west coast of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). Though the cuisine is slightly different for the different Saraswat subcastes the basic cuisine is the same.
The broad variations include the following
Satvik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satvik) vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian) food (No Onion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion)/Garlic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic)): Bhats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhat)(Priests), Orthodox Goud Saraswat Brahmins and Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins.This is followed by most Konkani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konkani) families on Holy days and on festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh_Chaturthi).
Vegetarian food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_food): Most Saraswat Brahmin are routinely vegetarian.
PiscoVegetarians: Many Saraswat Brahmins are Pisco Vegetarians .The inclusion of fish in the diet is not looked upon as Non vegetarian. Legend has it that when the Sarawati (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarawati&action=edit) River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River) dried up, the Sarawats who could not farm were permitted to sea food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_food)/fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish). The fish were euphemistically called Sea Vegetable or झळकें from ( जल काय -Jal Kaay).

A typical Breakfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast) in a saraswat home may have included pez(Rice Gruel) of Ookdey Tandul (Boiled rice)and lonchey(Pickles). Wealthier homes would partake of Dosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosa), Idli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idli) or Sannas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanna) along with chutney and or Sambhar. Shevaiyn phann or Phow (Gooda Phow or Meet Mirsange Phow) would be other breakfast specialities. Lunch and dinner would qunitesentially have DDT (Daat DaliToi) and Rice(Sheeth) in a Dorke's home whereas Bhanaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhanap) would prefer Ambat with their rice for KalvaNi"

vcindiana
25 September 2007, 09:06 PM
I have grown up eating meat, but also following Hindu traditions, i.e. not eating meat on tuesdays and thursdays, fasting on certain days, and not eating meat for a period of 10 days. My parents are from kashmir, so i hope that gives some sort of background info.
any help would be appreciated.

Whom are you going to impress by eating or not eating meat? Whom are you going to appease not eating meat on certain days? Are you telling us you are trying to be a "Good" Hindu? (Some of my Christian friends claim they are "Good" Christians!!!)
This is something you need to question your own consciousness and keep it to yourself. All we care is that you eat some good food to keep your body reasonably healthy. Incidently, my friendly sweet neighbor is 90 year old, and does not go without eating meat every day.
...Love

atanu
26 September 2007, 07:33 AM
Namaste mblova
I don't know the origin of your brahman families but i know according to an article on wikipedia that the saraswati brahmins eat at least some fish, here goes the article that supports what i am saying.

Quoting from Wikipedia;"
Saraswat Cuisine is the mainstay of Saraswat Brahmins on the west coast of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). Though the cuisine is slightly different for the different Saraswat subcastes the basic cuisine is the same.
The broad variations include the following
Satvik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satvik) vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian) food (No Onion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion)/Garlic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic)): Bhats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhat)(Priests), Orthodox Goud Saraswat Brahmins and Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins.This is followed by most Konkani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konkani) families on Holy days and on festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh_Chaturthi).
Vegetarian food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_food): Most Saraswat Brahmin are routinely vegetarian.
PiscoVegetarians: Many Saraswat Brahmins are Pisco Vegetarians .The inclusion of fish in the diet is not looked upon as Non vegetarian. Legend has it that when the Sarawati (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarawati&action=edit) River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River) dried up, the Sarawats who could not farm were permitted to sea food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_food)/fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish). The fish were euphemistically called Sea Vegetable or झळकें from ( जल काय -Jal Kaay).

A typical Breakfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast) in a saraswat home may have included pez(Rice Gruel) of Ookdey Tandul (Boiled rice)and lonchey(Pickles). Wealthier homes would partake of Dosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosa), Idli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idli) or Sannas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanna) along with chutney and or Sambhar. Shevaiyn phann or Phow (Gooda Phow or Meet Mirsange Phow) would be other breakfast specialities. Lunch and dinner would qunitesentially have DDT (Daat DaliToi) and Rice(Sheeth) in a Dorke's home whereas Bhanaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhanap) would prefer Ambat with their rice for KalvaNi"

Namaste,

Kashmiri and Bengali brahmins are generally not strict vegetarians. But it may be said that these brahmins have deviated from being true brahmins.

Om

mblova
26 September 2007, 04:30 PM
Whom are you going to impress by eating or not eating meat? Whom are you going to appease not eating meat on certain days? Are you telling us you are trying to be a "Good" Hindu? (Some of my Christian friends claim they are "Good" Christians!!!)
This is something you need to question your own consciousness and keep it to yourself. All we care is that you eat some good food to keep your body reasonably healthy. Incidently, my friendly sweet neighbor is 90 year old, and does not go without eating meat every day.
...Love


I am not trying to impress anybody by no eating meat on certain days, or even fasting. I am in no way telling anybody that im trying to be a good hindu(i dont know why i would have to tell others that i am....) but instead am simply thinking outloud as to why my family eats meat, yet continues to call themselves brahmins.
The reason i dont keep it to myself is that i am not as educated as others on this forum, hence why i came here, and have started threads. I am simply trying to gain some more knowledge.

satay
26 September 2007, 04:50 PM
Whom are you going to impress by eating or not eating meat? Whom are you going to appease not eating meat on certain days? Are you telling us you are trying to be a "Good" Hindu? (Some of my Christian friends claim they are "Good" Christians!!!)


Do you feel that when people choose to eat vegetarian food that they are trying to impress others? I don't see how you got that impression from mblova's sincere question. I think you are (as usual) trying to troll the thread.

With each post of yours you confirm my theory that you have been hurt and wounded by Indians, India and Hinduism in general. You are trying very hard to cheat yourself by getting back at Indians, India and hinduism by insulting them every chance you get by making subtle misleading statements.

Perhaps it is time for you to check your own conciousness and see if the 'love' you keep talking about like a parrot, is something that you actually comprehend.



Incidently, my friendly sweet neighbor is 90 year old, and does not go without eating meat every day.
...Love

And there are hundreds if not thousands of 90 year olds or more who haven't touched meat all their lives let alone eat it!

By the way, I used to be a meat eater but got sick of it when I found out that meat producers here feed the cows their own meat and steroids because it is cheaper and to make quick cash. This type of practice for donkey's food (money) is more unethical, hypocritical and sick than actually eating meat when there is no other option.

Agnideva
26 September 2007, 05:47 PM
Namaste All,

With regards to Indian Hinduism and meat eating, statistics show that more Indian Hindus are meat eaters than vegetarians. In actuality, I think only 20-30% of Hindus are vegetarians. A nationwide survey was conducted in 2006 about Indian peoples’ eating habits (I assume it was not biased or skewed). The results were surprising, and showed that the highest numbers and percentage of vegetarians were in the land-locked states of North India (Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh). The lowest number of vegetarians lived in coastal states (this includes all states of South India), with the exception of Gujarat. As excepted brahmins had the highest percentage of vegetarianism (~55%) as compared to other groups. If anyone is interested, I will try to find the link to that survey.

Mblova: what you say (eating meat and being Hindu) is actually extremely common, far more common than most would care to admit. I myself come from such a family where meat eating was in no way taboo on ordinary days, but on certain days meat was not cooked or served. Do I advocate or condone this practice? No. I am only writing about this here, so we can all be aware that this practice does exist. As far as why your family chooses not to eat meat on certain days, it is because those days of the week are considered holy. Tuesday for example is considered Hanuman’s day in all of North India. And as far as Kashmir Pandits are concerned, I think historically the Pandits became non-vegetarian several centuries ago under the influence of Islam when a majority of Kashmiris were converted.

Now, as far as the question (which hasn’t yet been raised): is it not hypocritical to eat meat on some days and not on others? Yes, it is. To be honest, I think these practices are guided by some sense of guilt among Hindus who do consume meat. In his writings, Sivaya Subramuniyaswami says that among Hindus who do consume meat, there is a subtle sense of guilt for doing so. I know this to be very true from my first hand experiences.

OM Shanti,
A.

Eastern Mind
26 September 2007, 06:40 PM
Agnideva: Best post so far on this subject. Clearest, and non-condescending. I agreed with everything you said. You were polite in the 'subtle guilt' bit. Sometimes it is real guilt. I was around Sri Subramuniyaswami for awhile. Heard this story: In Jaffna, Sri Lanka, for 10 days or so when he was there (1981) the people all hid their meat... while he was there.. meat shops closed, everything was out of sight, until he left. Of course, being the Guru he was, he could see all of this going on in His inner sight. So it was sad, and almost quaintly funny at the same time. Aum Namashivaya
mblova: I hope you gain clarity through Ganesha's grace and come to terms with your situation so well espoused here. You are getting plenty of feedback to your worthy questions. Like some here, I 'experimented' with vegetarianism, and liked it. BTW, its (vegetarianism) still growing at alarming (for the cattle producers) rate here in the west. But its balancing out the growth of non-veg in India. Aum Namashivaya

mblova
29 November 2007, 08:25 AM
A slight conclusion from my part. I have decided to continue my current practices as I have not been able to make a decision.

sarabhanga
29 November 2007, 03:59 PM
Namaste mblova (et al.),

Traditionally, dharma is based in karma and kAma.

There is no general rule for the whole of hinduism, and the advice of one’s own 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.

However, when one understands the inviolable law of karma, and the fundamental principle of absolute kAma (i.e. universal compassion), 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.

On hinduism and vegetarian diet (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=8328&postcount=20)

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.

Arvind Sivaraman
03 December 2007, 11:12 PM
A slight conclusion from my part. I have decided to continue my current practices as I have not been able to make a decision.

Om Shirdi Sai Ram.
Namaste mblova.

You may not stop it at once.Bring into practise by reducing your intake of meat and then a day will come wherein you may become averse to taking meat.
Try reading books of Great Saints who have given us the right direction.
I will give you an instance of Valmiki Sundarakandam book.
At one point of time Lord Hanuman concludes that if he is unable to find Godess Sita, then he will become a renunciate and will survive on fruits which fall on their own in the earth.
ie;That was the time when even plucking of fruits was considered an offence.

Arjuna
13 December 2007, 03:36 PM
2 mblova:

Meat eating isn't prohibited for Brahmanas, though it is prohibited in some Hindu traditions.
Kashmiri, Bengali, Konkani and Nepali Brahmanas normally eat meat. Most of Kaula-Shakta Brahmanas use meat at least in rituals (which is in fact the case since Vedic times). But most of Vaishnava Brahmanas are strict vegetarians.

sarabhanga
13 December 2007, 06:44 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

There is no general prohibition, only wise advice. How do "Kashmiri, Bengali, Konkani and Nepali Brahmanas" justify the regular slaughter of animals for their own physical satisfaction when there are less hurtful alternatives readily available? Do they have no regard for the principle of Ahimsa? How can any supposed "knower of brahma" destroy another sentient creature without a good reason? All of the regions you mention have been heavily influenced by non-Brahmana (indeed, non-Hindu) society, and perhaps that explains their apparent disregard for the spirit incarnate in sentient beings other than themselves!

Your advice is that many people who call themselves Brahmana eat meat (fish, chicken, mutton, beef, pork, etc.) and others should follow their wise example and also kill animals only to satisfy their personal desire for the taste of blood :eek:

You may not follow the Yoga Sutras, but Sage Patanjali notes that the five rules of Yama (which begin with Ahimsa) constitute the first rule of Dharma for ALL races, in ALL places, at ALL times, and in ALL circumstances!

ete jAti-desha-kAla-samayAnavacchinnAH sArva-bhaumA mahAvratam

Please explain how "meat-eating" can be reconciled with Yama.

In some areas it may be traditional to eat fish, but there is no orthodox tradition suggesting that warm-blooded animals may be freely killed and eaten by Brahmanas!

sm78
14 December 2007, 12:21 AM
Regarding meat eating of bengali brahmins there is a funny story. It could be real or cooked up ~ but seems plausible due to the geo-physical characteristics of bengal region.

The story goes that, Once upon a time there was wide spread famine in the east bengal region. Food in form of cereals and grains became scarce and gradually unavailable for some time. The vegetarian brahmanas of the region faced the sure way of starvation. Then one sadhu in a village who was also a brahmana first ate fish to prevent starvation. Fish has always been a widely available source of food in the region. This was said to be the start of meat eating in bengali brahmins.

:)

satay
14 December 2007, 08:47 AM
Namaste singhi,


Regarding meat eating of bengali brahmins there is a funny story. It could be real or cooked up ~ but seems plausible due to the geo-physical characteristics of bengal region.

The story goes that, Once upon a time there was wide spread famine in the east bengal region. Food in form of cereals and grains became scarce and gradually unavailable for some time. The vegetarian brahmanas of the region faced the sure way of starvation. Then one sadhu in a village who was also a brahmana first ate fish to prevent starvation. Fish has always been a widely available source of food in the region. This was said to be the start of meat eating in bengali brahmins.

:)


This story sounds similar to how Sikhs justify eating meat. Though most, if not all, only eat chicken or goat. The story of justification is that once Guru Gobind Singh (the tenth sikh guru), along with his few brave men, was fighting a battle with muslims in a forest. The battle lasted for many days. They were surrounded from all directions and the ediable greens around them were gone. To avoid starvation of his brave remaining soldiers, guru gobind ordered them to hunt down a nearby animal (perhaps a bird or some other animal, not sure) and eat it.

So sikhs to this day justify their meat eating citing, "our guru allowed it", forgetting the exceptional circumstances that he allowed it in!

On another note, I have read some posts elsewhere of hindus born in kashatriya family saying that 'for a kashatriya it is 'okay' to eat meat'!

How can this be? A kashatriya's dharma is to 'protect'. Does that not imply 'protect all life', society, environment etc.?

This is like the christians justifying eating meat by saying, "lord didn't mean don't kill animals" even though the command is so clear, Thou shalt not kill.

I suppose the human selfishness finds justification for everything by twisting and turning anything even the words of gurus. :rolleyes:

sarabhanga
14 December 2007, 08:09 PM
Namaste Satay,

In vaidika times, the brAhmaNa would share the prasAda from the sacrificial offerings of others, but they would not kill or consume meat outside the special conditions of ritual sacrifice. And the jaina and bauddha had always observed ahiMsA. But there was no general prohibition of meat-eating until after 257 BC, when ashoka maurya converted to the teaching of gautama shAkyamuni.

Goats, sheep, and pigs, were still allowed at first (so long as they were over six months old, and neither pregnant nor suckling young), but soon all animals were removed from the menu.

“Many hundred thousands of living beings were formerly slaughtered every day in the kitchen of priyadarshI for the sake of curry. But now … I have declared the following species of animals exempt from slaughter: parrots, mynas, geese, cranes, herons, bats, queen ants, boneless fish, flat fish, dolphins, tortoises, terrapins, porcupines, hares, stags, bulls, household vermin, rhinoceroses, doves, pigeons, and all the quadrupeds that are neither useful nor edible. Cocks are not to be caponed. Husks containing living beings should not be burnt. Forests must not be burnt either uselessly or in order to destroy living beings. The living must not be fed with the living. Here no living beings should be slaughtered for sacrifice.”

Arjuna
15 December 2007, 04:33 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

I do not give any advices regarding one's diet since i am not qualified in this field. The only sure thing is that according to science human body need some kind of non-veg food, which may be fish or eggs if not meat.

Regarding meat consumption in general, for Brahmanas in ancient times it was mostly sacrificial meat, while Kshatriyas and others could hunt (which was never termed as a sin). What i want to say is only that it is possible acc. to Hindu dharma to be a meat-eater. I do not say it is preferrable! Fish and eggs are enough for bodily health (and to take care of one's health is verily part of Dharma and ahimsa).

As my Guru said: "I saw Saints who were eating meat and saw Saints who were vegetarians, so it doesn't matter".

P. S. I have seen how cows are surviving in India and i am not sure it is a good fate. They have to eat plastic rubbish! Is THAT practical ahimsa, to torture poor animals? Is is less sin to kill them and stop sufferings.

sarabhanga
15 December 2007, 08:25 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

“Meat eating isn’t prohibited for Brahmanas” and “it is possible according to Hindu dharma to be a meat-eater” are quite different statements. Hindu Dharma is certainly aware that is possible for humans to eat meat!

The fact that humans can digest meat and tear flesh with their teeth is a sure sign that the Creator has allowed man the free choice of a carnivorous diet, if that is his desire. Although, each individual also has the free choice to adopt a variety of harm minimization strategies; and those who are blind to the injury caused by their carnivorous habits are far from enlightenment.

Hinduism never condemns such individuals, who remain (given time, positive influence, and spiritual effort) able to make better choices in the future. ;)




The only sure thing is that according to science the human body needs some kind of non-veg food, which may be fish or eggs if not meat.

There are about 10 million Jains in the world, with about 50,000 strict renunciates, and most of those millions of Jains have NEVER consumed meat, fish, or eggs. And I don’t know how many Hindus are strictly vegetarian, but there are certainly many millions still living happily without meat or fish, and mostly without eggs as well! How can such “science” explain their continuing existence?

Many western authorities also claim that it is impossible for a (usually omnivorous) dog to live on a purely vegetarian diet, although I have personally encountered quite a few completely vegetarian dogs (mostly in India, but also in the West). These particular dogs always seem to have shining coats and full canine vigor, and they only eat the leftovers from their master’s (pure vegetarian) table.

And for some decades now, I have experienced no problems with sustaining myself on a diet that does not require the slaughter of any innocent animals ~ except perhaps for some very small ones that slipped in unnoticed!




As my Guru said: “I saw Saints who were eating meat and saw Saints who were vegetarians, so it doesn't matter”.

The very first stage of Yoga Sadhana is establishment in Ahimsa (Not Harming), without which no progress in Yoga is possible and Liberation is impossible.

ALL Life is sacred, and the wise Yogin understands that even plant-life deserves ultimate respect. Unnecessary herbal slaughter is avoided by a generally reduced diet, and the Yogin respectfully harvests, prepares, and consumes only enough to maintain his own life until Mahasamadhi is attained.

Veg. or Non-veg. ~ the choice is yours. Diet has little importance in any reasonable definition of a Hindu; however, diet is of the utmost importance in consideration of Yoga.

Yoga is the ultimate aim of Sanatana Dharma; although the attainment of Yoga is, for most Hindus, more or less remote ~ more remote for carnivores, and less remote for herbivores (all else being equal).

The only ranks traditionally allowed to bear arms are the Kshatriyas and the Nagas ~ the leaders of the human community and the leaders of the spiritual community ~ the only ones trusted to always stay true to the correct principles of Dharma. And some members of this martial class have always been allowed to practice and improve their art, in the game of hunting. And, indeed, some innocent lives have thus been lost in training and building up the strength of the military forces.

Today, it is unheard of to find a Dasanami Naga Sannyasin who would openly consume meat, although many Kshatriyas do continue their non-veg. traditions; but if a Kshatriya determined to make some effort to attain Brahmana status, then perhaps the very first thing that their Guru would advise would be: STOP EATING MEAT !

Human suffering is perhaps the greatest of any creature, since it is magnified beyond mere pain through our intensely reflective mind; and in real life, Ahimsa becomes rather a balancing act, and this is a major point of the Gita. An informed personal judgment should be made at every turn.

Hinduism does not compel anyone to vegetarianism, or renunciation, or liberation, or bliss.
Hinduism allows completely free choice of action for all individuals.
Hinduism advises that every choice be made carefully, with a true appreciation of its ramifications, implications, and ultimate consequences.

Moksha is not to be found where Himsa yet exists!




I have seen how cows are surviving in India and i am not sure it is a good fate. They have to eat plastic rubbish! Is THAT practical ahimsa, to torture poor animals? Is it less sin to kill them and stop sufferings?

Would it not be better to suggest reforming the perpetrators of harmful action rather than just killing their victims? :(

yajvan
16 December 2007, 09:46 AM
P. S. I have seen how cows are surviving in India and i am not sure it is a good fate. They have to eat plastic rubbish! Is THAT practical ahimsa, to torture poor animals? Is is less sin to kill them and stop sufferings.

Namaste,
I thought these relevent...

"Nothing will increase the chances of survival for life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” Albert Einstein

“The greatness of a people can be measured by how well it treats its animals.”
Mahatma Gandhi

"If man is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practise kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant, German Philosopher

Eastern Mind
16 December 2007, 10:02 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

The only sure thing is that according to science human body need some kind of non-veg food, which may be fish or eggs if not meat.


I occasionally get this argument from western friends. My response is, "Do I look dead to you?" This is not according to science at all. Back when I first became a vegetarian 35 years ago, my wife and I did a careful full dietary analysis over a one month period. We were far ahead (on daily requirements) in all nutritional needs except for B12 and iron. Ironically, (no pun intended) whenever we've had blood work done later in life (like during my wife's pregnancies) the iron and B12 counts were just fine. So even those were okay. I did inject B12 for a short time as my doctor said I was low, but not dangerously low. Still take B12 supplements about thrice a week.
The other funny question is always "But where do you get your protein?" This one's really funny because the average American diet gets about 300% (often more) of their daily needs. The real question back at the meat eaters should be "Where do you get your vitamins?" So somehow the concern over another's diet has gotten all reversed. Instead of the meat eaters being concerned over the vegetarian's diet, it surely should be the other way around. Here are some of my concerns for 'them':
Aren't you worried about high cholesteral? What about 'mad cow' and the new evidence that Alzheimer's over the years has been misdiagnosed, and really its been 'mad cow' all along? Aren't you concerned about all the chemicals in meat? Just where do you get your vitamins?
Aum Namasivaya

satay
16 December 2007, 02:38 PM
One thing I have noticed from personal experience is that my B12 is low ever since I returned home to the vegetarian diet. I am not sure if that is due to the veg diet or because I started donating blood every 6 weeks for the last few years. The main problem with B12 shortage in the blood I am told is that it causes memory loss. I take B12 supplements whenever I remember. :)

On another note, my grandparents on both sides were not only total vegetarians but also didn't eat onions etc. which vaishnavas consider non-satvic food. To this day, my mom has never ever even touched dead animal meat let alone eat it. Same thing with eggs and fish. She is also always low on B12. The point of writing all this is that there are many vegetarians that survive fine without fish, eggs and meat, notwithstanding low counts of B12.

A few years back I got into an argument with 'Damodar' on hindunet about this. I have since changed my stance and found that both diets have its pros and cons health wise. Choice is our own...afterall, we do have free will, don't we? ;)

saidevo
17 December 2007, 05:56 AM
P. S. I have seen how cows are surviving in India and i am not sure it is a good fate. They have to eat plastic rubbish! Is THAT practical ahimsa, to torture poor animals? Is is less sin to kill them and stop sufferings.


1. There is worse to it. In Chennai the milch cows are given injections and fed unnatural amounts of sugar so they will produce more milk! The ill effects of such treatment show up in the shortened life span of the cow; and when it excretes dung, it is often diluted and pasty, indicating the amount of intestinal suffering the animal should have had. The milkmen won't just care about it all. Some of them are rich enough to have built houses and rent them out!

2. What about the cooks at home and restaurants whose job is to prepare and cook meat, though they stay complete vegetarians in their own diet? Aren't they affected by the emanations from the meat in the process of cooking it?

sm78
17 December 2007, 06:13 AM
1. There is worse to it. In Chennai the milch cows are given injections and fed unnatural amounts of sugar so they will produce more milk! The ill effects of such treatment show up in the shortened life span of the cow; and when it excretes dung, it is often diluted and pasty, indicating the amount of intestinal suffering the animal should have had. The milkmen won't just care about it all. Some of them are rich enough to have built houses and rent them out!

2. What about the cooks at home and restaurants whose job is to prepare and cook meat, though they stay complete vegetarians in their own diet? Aren't they affected by the emanations from the meat in the process of cooking it?


Ya, much drama had gone as to sins of beef eating, yet we are seemingly incapable of taking care of our cows. Those poor ones which have run out of milk producing are coolly sold of by many hindu owners to his muslim neighbor for consumption...this could be worse than actual beef eating.

I have seen huge fares where milkless cows get auctioned. Muslims don't keep cows for milk...surelu they originally belonged to some hindu owner.

Arjuna
20 December 2007, 06:54 PM
I occasionally get this argument from western friends. My response is, "Do I look dead to you?"

Smokers also usually do not look dead, as well as somewhat excessive drinkers :). That doesn't prove these are good for health!

Eastern Mind
20 December 2007, 08:07 PM
Smokers also usually do not look dead, as well as somewhat excessive drinkers :). That doesn't prove these are good for health!

Fair enough. But the point in my comment was that you do not need non-veg ingredients to stay in good health, as you had asserted. Both types of diet have their support for good health, and many of examples of longevity. In each diet you need a balance and should be getting all the necessary ingredients without overdoing the unhealthy ones like sugar and salt and certain fats. My response to the westerners who ask is a bit terse of course, and that is not actually my usual response. I'm more polite than that. But occasionally terseness is necessary in such debate, when the other side is clouded by ignorance as in the "Where do you get your protein one?" Aum Namasivaya

nithyanandam.net
01 September 2008, 05:05 PM
I eat meat, but at the same time my family practices being brahmins(they eat meat). I'v very curious to know what the scriptures say about this. I have no experience with the scriptures and would appreciate a place where i could start reading about this issue.
Also, i do not eat meat on tuesdays and thursdays. I'm trying to search for a reason for this also. All help would be appreciated.

Hi mblova,

It appears that you're interested in the reason behind rituals and customs regarding eating meat or not eating meat , instead of just practicing something simply because everyone is doing it. It is common that when customs and rituals are handed down without being clear about the reason behind it, people feel less motivated to follow and end up with guilt from not following the custom. It is possible to support the cause for vegetarianism only from the point of view of practicality.

When it comes to vegetarianism, I read that vegetarian food helps the energy flow in our body. It keeps us light and active throughout the day. Meat , alcohol, and cigarettes are considered tamas (lethargy) inducing items ( garlic, onions, green chilies in any form as well). These foods or habits induce laziness in us. Using these substances makes us dull and create a feeling of depression in the morning.

The first twenty minutes immediately after we wake up in the morning, plays a vital role in shaping our entire day. The mood we are in, the thoughts that arise, and the way we react to these thoughts during the first twenty minutes, sets the trend for our entire day. Watch this from now on. One way to wake up refreshed, without depression every morning , is to eat vegetarian food.

Love and Light,

mblova
22 September 2008, 09:09 PM
Hi mblova,

It appears that you're interested in the reason behind rituals and customs regarding eating meat or not eating meat , instead of just practicing something simply because everyone is doing it. It is common that when customs and rituals are handed down without being clear about the reason behind it, people feel less motivated to follow and end up with guilt from not following the custom. It is possible to support the cause for vegetarianism only from the point of view of practicality.

When it comes to vegetarianism, I read that vegetarian food helps the energy flow in our body. It keeps us light and active throughout the day. Meat , alcohol, and cigarettes are considered tamas (lethargy) inducing items ( garlic, onions, green chilies in any form as well). These foods or habits induce laziness in us. Using these substances makes us dull and create a feeling of depression in the morning.

The first twenty minutes immediately after we wake up in the morning, plays a vital role in shaping our entire day. The mood we are in, the thoughts that arise, and the way we react to these thoughts during the first twenty minutes, sets the trend for our entire day. Watch this from now on. One way to wake up refreshed, without depression every morning , is to eat vegetarian food.

Love and Light,
Hi,

Thanks for your response. I think in my current state i am still searching for answers. Everybody has provided good answers and questions for discussion, but i have not yet found an answer that i feel satisfied with. This will only take time.

nithyanandam.net
03 January 2009, 09:29 PM
Hi everyone,

In general, the suffering recorded in the animal's body when it was killed, that suffering will be there in your body if you eat the animal. Whenever an animal is killed, it experiences tremendous suffering. You see: you are not eating the animal that died naturally. You are eating it after killing it. It is a premature death for the animal. Because it is killed prematurely, it harbors a lack of fulfillment in its flesh. When you swallow that flesh, those feelings will naturally be recorded in you.

mblova
02 February 2009, 09:13 AM
Hi everyone,

In general, the suffering recorded in the animal's body when it was killed, that suffering will be there in your body if you eat the animal. Whenever an animal is killed, it experiences tremendous suffering. You see: you are not eating the animal that died naturally. You are eating it after killing it. It is a premature death for the animal. Because it is killed prematurely, it harbors a lack of fulfillment in its flesh. When you swallow that flesh, those feelings will naturally be recorded in you.
Interesting point that you make.

Hiwaunis
11 February 2009, 08:20 PM
Hi everyone,

In general, the suffering recorded in the animal's body when it was killed, that suffering will be there in your body if you eat the animal. Whenever an animal is killed, it experiences tremendous suffering. You see: you are not eating the animal that died naturally. You are eating it after killing it. It is a premature death for the animal. Because it is killed prematurely, it harbors a lack of fulfillment in its flesh. When you swallow that flesh, those feelings will naturally be recorded in you.

Pranam,
I was also taught something somewhat similiar to that statement. It goes something like this:

While a body is alive it is constantly creating and eliminating waste. When the boby is killed/ dead the process of eliminating waste is stopped. On a cellular level that waste is excreated into the muscle tissues and there it stays.

From my understanding cooking does not remove the waste. Therefore, you are eating the dead animal's waste.

Om Shanti

sm78
13 February 2009, 05:47 AM
Hi everyone,

In general, the suffering recorded in the animal's body when it was killed, that suffering will be there in your body if you eat the animal. Whenever an animal is killed, it experiences tremendous suffering. You see: you are not eating the animal that died naturally. You are eating it after killing it. It is a premature death for the animal. Because it is killed prematurely, it harbors a lack of fulfillment in its flesh. When you swallow that flesh, those feelings will naturally be recorded in you.

Who gives the opinion about whether something premature or mature? Can anybody do that?

Who says natural death is less painful? Infact more often it is much more slow and painful.

That there is terrible suffering in death is a big misconception or a purposeful lie. Suffering is only in life, not death, nor in the process of dying. Unless one is purposefully torturing an animal or plant, leaving it injured and is made to remain conscious for long periods of its suffering.

When throat is slit or head is chopped off consciousness is immediately lost and the visible struggle that the dying animal or man puts forth is almost fully the reaction of the vital force of which the dying animal or man is no longer aware of. Hence there is no suffering except to the heart of the beholder.

Suffering is more in manner in which animals are kept and multiplied for food. May be the idea of an industry just to slaughter and produce higher quantity of meat at the cheapest cost is monstrous. There are many many other reasons for not eating meat. But, what you suggest is a myth.

atanu
15 February 2009, 11:43 PM
Who gives the opinion about whether something premature or mature? Can anybody do that?

Who says natural death is less painful? Infact more often it is much more slow and painful.

That there is terrible suffering in death is a big misconception or a purposeful lie. Suffering is only in life, not death, nor in the process of dying. Unless one is purposefully torturing an animal or plant, leaving it injured and is made to remain conscious for long periods of its suffering.

When throat is slit or head is chopped off consciousness is immediately lost and the visible struggle that the dying animal or man puts forth is almost fully the reaction of the vital force of which the dying animal or man is no longer aware of. Hence there is no suffering except to the heart of the beholder.

Suffering is more in manner in which animals are kept and multiplied for food. May be the idea of an industry just to slaughter and produce higher quantity of meat at the cheapest cost is monstrous. There are many many other reasons for not eating meat. But, what you suggest is a myth.

Namaste SM,

I think this is a bold and lucid post.

Would you not agree that even in life suffering is in the ignorance of true nature of life?

Om

sm78
16 February 2009, 06:09 AM
I can only testify to suffering in life. To the cause of the suffering, I have to rely on the explanations of scriptures and knowledgable teachers~which is ignorace about the true nature of the self.

On the present topic too, my opinion is based on words of teachers. Scientific opinion on the matter is debatable as it is difficult to quatify pain in scientific terms.

It seems brain activity of decapitited head continues for 3-14 secs, but brain activity does not imply conciousness which is supposedly immediately lost.

saidevo
16 February 2009, 07:19 AM
I don't think it is a myth: Nithyanandam's statement that a dying animal's suffering is recorded in its body and transmitted to the person who eats its meat (though long after it died). I would like to add a POV from Theosophy.

All that is manifest in Creation is essentially vibrations, and vibrations often shape up into a form: in gross as well as subtle matter. Thus, even our thoughts and emotions generate forms and colors in their related matter. When we think of a horse, we actually create it on the mental plane using mental matter. When we express an emotion, we transmit it through the astral plane in shapes and colors. Contrary to the physical matter, the matter of the astral and mental planes are so plastic that a mere thought, feeling and emotion can rouse it into a shape, energize the shape and set it on its course of action.

The course of action of shapes thus created in subtle matter is to reach and act on their target. This they do for sure, whatever the physical distance between the initiator and the recipient. Once they reach their target, they hover around it in the related planes that surround the target and finally get integrated into the mentral and astral bodies of the recipient. This is why a mother's protective feelings and possessive affection for her child have so much effect and people with artistic sensitivities and scientific bent often get their ideas from the blue as it were. This is why the sacred belongings of a sage are sought after by his devotees: for the beneficient vibrations they retain and transmit.

Thus an animal that is killed before its time is up would certainly have thoughts and emotions related to its death and these would be lodged onto its flesh for later transmission to its meat eater. After all the physical body is dearest for everyone, man or beast or bird.

C.W.Leadbeater has authored a beautiful book titled Hidden Side of Things, which can be read/downloaded at http://www.anandgholap.net.

atanu
16 February 2009, 11:03 AM
I don't think it is a myth: Nithyanandam's statement that a dying animal's suffering is recorded in its body and transmitted to the person who eats its meat (though long after it died). I would like to add a POV from Theosophy.



Namste Saidevo ji,

Yes. Thank you. The very practice of cremation of dead bodies with Agni is based on the fact that dead bodies carry the negative emotions of wrath, jealousy, suffering etc. Hindu Dharma allows exception only in case of the Self realised sages for whom there is neither pain in death nor in life and there is no accumulation of negativities. This is what I tried to convey earlier by asking whether the pain of life is not actually the pain of ignorance?

Consciousness as Agni is the will and life force within the waters (consciousness again in the form of the body). It is said that Agni hides within waters in fear of Death. Varuna (Death) however brings out the Agni (to show Agni His true abode). Agni, however, is said to spit in wrath on the waters at the time of leaving. Only in case of the realised sages this does not happen.

Om

sm78
16 February 2009, 11:08 PM
Namste Saidevo ji,

Yes. Thank you. The very practice of cremation of dead bodies with Agni is based on the fact that dead bodies carry the negative emotions of wrath, jealousy, suffering etc. Hindu Dharma allows exception only in case of the Self realised sages for whom there is neither pain in death nor in life and there is no accumulation of negativities. This is what I tried to convey earlier by asking whether the pain of life is not actually the pain of ignorance?

Cremation of dead bodies is done so that the deseased soul is not attached to its body anymore.

Meat has its properties which is not suitable for spiritually inclined folks. However linking this to mental vasanas is taking our own imaginations too far.

sm78
16 February 2009, 11:15 PM
Thus an animal that is killed before its time is up would certainly have thoughts and emotions related to its death and these would be lodged onto its flesh for later transmission to its meat eater. After all the physical body is dearest for everyone, man or beast or bird.


The physical body and the vital body functions directly under the control of the blissful body.(annamaya, pranamaya and anandamaya koshas). The mind is just a spoil sport which thinks the body is its, which in reality is not true.

When physical body dies, its constituents dissolves into the 5 tattvas. There is no other truth than this.

The vasanas are carried on by the soul in its next life and suffering continues.

There is nothing inauspicious about a dead body except again in the mind of the beholder. It is just 5 elements like anything else. As far as my knowledge what nityananda says is more of a propaganda of jealous vegans.

As I said, there are many other reasons to give up meat including the desire for not to kill.

This is my opinion and understanding. I don't claim it to be true, but haven't seen a reason to doubt it sofar.

atanu
17 February 2009, 12:01 AM
Cremation of dead bodies is done so that the deseased soul is not attached to its body anymore.



Namaste SM,

Curious. How you say with certitude the same thing that I say, yet not know it. ;) Contemplate. Contemplate.

That the soul tends to cling with its negativities to the body (subtle/gross) is what we have also said (IMO).

:)

Om

Bhaskara Narasimhaiah
18 February 2009, 01:24 AM
Why doesn't a tiger live on vegetation sparing all the animals it preys on....?

Going purely by the ways of the nature, life forms have evolved to feed on other life forms for survival. The deer feeds on the vegetation, the tiger feeds on the deer and it goes on and on. This is what we call ecological balance. There are no scruples whatsoever, in this.

Man has evolved to feed on vegetation, in its nascent form.
In the course of evolution, with passage of time, man constantly is in conflict with the nature and as a result we have reached where we are with our societies, belief systems, science, technology etc., Man has since broken many of his limits imposed by the nature, for his well(?) being, by harnessing the science and technology.

In this way the man has broken the limits of nature on his food habits too. He has developed methods (we may call it ‘technology’) to consume food items, not made for him naturally. This is how he has come to consume meat in a form that is digestible by human digestive system. He cooked the meat to eat; just as he has discovered methods to fly like a bird; swim like a fish and run (with motorcycle of course!) like a cheetah, which are not natural for him. Thus, the Man has been able to break the limits of the nature with his intelligent MIND.

The HUMAN MIND is capable of so much ‘CREATION’ that there are so many religions, belief systems, today, which are in total disagreement. The fight, the unrest, the terror today in the world is because of disagreements between these belief systems created by the human Mind. The fight in todays world is not between good or bad, right or wrong; but, between one man's belief versus another man's belief. Unfortunately, all these faiths, religions etc., that were meant to enhance the overall well being of whole creation, have become causes of pain, violence and destruction.

This is because, every theory that originates purely in human mind, has all the subjectivity of it. eventually it becomes a dogma and blinds the reason of its followers, who fight with followers of other faiths.

Where as, there is only one gravitation theory for every one, which every body agrees without any difference, for, it is reflection of the Nature. The subjective world of the mind, which is driven by pure idea and logic of the day, is limited in perception and scope; therefore it ends up in creating incomplete knowledge and systems based on limited information and wrong judgements. The present discussion on vegetarianism is based on one such belief.

Today vegetarianism is only optional. It is natural food for human beings; at the same time with advancement of knowledge, man has discovered methods to eat and digest meat. There is nothing wrong in eating meat in the processed form, as long as one does not consume raw meat, which is harmful to his health. Just as we cook some hard vegetarian stuff, which otherwise is indigestible, for food.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for man to control his endless desire to harness the science and technology for his comfort. He is not the only life form existing on the earth, although his presence is dominant. There is a need to limit himself to preserve ecology and its balance. It is time that we looked at the Nature and harness the science and technology in the ways of the Nature for true well being of the whole life form and the Nature; else we are poised for destruction.

If some body is strongly advocating vegetarianism for any other reason is mere subjective. All that fuss and confusion we are seeing today is the result of PURE IDEA DRIVEN ideology. As it is alright to fly like a bird and swim like a fish with the help of technology, it as well alright to do all such things which are not natural to human beings as long as they serve the well being of the whole life form and the Nature.

saidevo
19 February 2009, 08:00 AM
Namaste everyone.

The whole thread is essentially a discussion about suffering (animal/human as the main reason to avoid meat eating), so let us try to describe suffering in terms of the mind and the vestures that cover the soul.



Suffering is only in life, not death, nor in the process of dying. Unless one is purposefully torturing an animal or plant, leaving it injured and is made to remain conscious for long periods of its suffering.

When throat is slit or head is chopped off consciousness is immediately lost and the visible struggle that the dying animal or man puts forth is almost fully the reaction of the vital force of which the dying animal or man is no longer aware of. Hence there is no suffering except to the heart of the beholder.

When physical body dies, its constituents dissolves into the 5 tattvas. There is no other truth than this. (post #49)


Suffering, whether in life or dying or after death, we say is due to ignorance caused by our ego and mind. What can we say about what exactly this suffering is, in terms of the effects on the vestures that cover the human or animal soul? I think suffering might be described in this way:

• The most natural state of manifest life is to be at peace and harmony with itself, that is, its Self, and its surroundings. Of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, peace and harmony is achieved to the fullest in the state of deep sleep. In the other two states, the peace and harmony of the soul is disturbed by various factors that cause pleasure and pain. This disturbance, either self-created or inflicted that causes pain or even pleasure, is the suffering felt by the soul in its manifestation.

• In the two states of waking and dreaming, except for the Self-Realized souls, every other soul (human or animal) undergoes continuous suffering that causes either pleasure or pain or both in combination. This suffering manifests as pain (and to some extent pleasure), feelings/emotions, and thoughts in the corresponding vestures: annamaya, prANamaya and manomaya (physical, astral and mental bodies). The immanent soul is of course unaffected, but since the sufferings draw a veil over it, its communication with the ego (jIva) is affected.

• Thus the soul, whose natural habitat is the Anandamaya kosha, presides over the sufferings manifest in the other 'koshas', though it only watches over them silently. After the physical body is killed or dropped, the soul does remain enclosed by its other vestures, though it may now reside in the subtler worlds. The soul is never free of all of its vestures so it can return to its original state of NirguNa Brahman, except in the case of the Self-Realized who chose such a course. Even the Rishis reside in the 'mahar and tapa lokas' with subtle bodies. Even the Trimurtis have their forms in the 'satya loka' as SarguNa Brahman.

• As Atanu says, as per our Hindu scriptures, only the process of cremating the dead physical body completely dissolves it into the source--its constitutent five elements. Until then, the soul is conscious of the current state of its physical body, and presides over the suffering manifest in its other vestures due to the loss of its physical body; and the 'suffering' due to the loss of physical body is completely gone once the physical body has decomposed to its source or when the soul acquires a new physical body. The soul, during the time it resides in the astral world after death of physical body and when it waits after enjoying its good karma in the heavens for a new birth, still 'suffers' over its unfulfilled cravings for want of a physical body to enjoy/suffer them.

• Natural death enables the soul to reconcile itself more quickly to its 'suffering'--that is, its association with the current state of its vestures, whereas unnatural death only enhances the soul's attachment, specially to its physical body and greatly delays this reconciliation process.

• Further, in natural death, the soul takes on its further 'gati' (course) in a natural manner; whereas in unnatural death, the soul hovers and wanders over its physical surroundings till the time of its natural death. Although such 'hovering and wandering' is usually be attributed to the human soul, it can't be different for the animals because the soul is essentially the same in whatever physical form it takes, with a mind to preside over such form. Perhaps souls of the vegetable kingdom do not 'suffer' this fate since they have no mind.

That brings us to the nature of mind and how it blocks the Self from knowing its true nature.



The physical body and the vital body functions directly under the control of the blissful body.(annamaya, pranamaya and anandamaya koshas). The mind is just a spoil sport which thinks the body is its, which in reality is not true.


• Mind by itself (along with its constitutents of 'chitta, manas and ahaMkAra' form its own vesture, the 'manomaya koSha' or the mental body. The physical body and the vital body do not function 'directly under the control of the blissful body'. They function only under the control of the mind. It is the mind that always rules over the physical body.

• But strangely, the mind is defined and controlled by the prANA that forms the vital body (prANamaya koSha), so we can control the mind by regulating our breathing.

• Mind is essentially like glass. The purer it is, the more transparent it becomes to reflect the true nature of the underlying Self. Our mind, however, is coated by the 'vasanas' of our previous births on the one side, so it only reflects the physical and dreamy worlds to us, veiling our soul and deluding the Jiva (ego) into thinking that the manifest world and the physical body are its natural habitats. When conditioned by religions such as the western, the ego is even deluded into the thinking that it is the Atma and that upon death of its physical body, it would either go to hell to be permanently destroyed, or heaven to be permanently preserved.

• The soul in the Anandamaya koSha is expressed by the ichChA shakti, the Will. Its pending vAsanas are expressed as mind by its kriyA shakti. The jnAna shakti, which is the buddhi or wisdom part of mind, is supposed to guide the kriyA shakti for lessening/removal of the accumulated vAsanas, but our past karma gives rise to the Free Will that deludes the mind towards more accumulation of karma in the current birth, rather than removing the past karma!

Thus, we can say that the entire duration of manifest life, whether that of a human or an animal essentially consists of only suffering, though with varying degrees. There is hardly any pure enjoyment that is free from bad karma for the jIva, whose path of Self-Realization is perhaps marked even with more suffering than its worldly life.

devotee
19 February 2009, 08:54 AM
It was a nice one, Saideoji ! :)

Regards,

OM

sm78
23 February 2009, 12:38 AM
• Mind by itself (along with its constitutents of 'chitta, manas and ahaMkAra' form its own vesture, the 'manomaya koSha' or the mental body. The physical body and the vital body do not function 'directly under the control of the blissful body'. They function only under the control of the mind. It is the mind that always rules over the physical body.

This is a misconception, for example in your sleep body functions perfectly OK.



• But strangely, the mind is defined and controlled by the prANA that forms the vital body (prANamaya koSha), so we can control the mind by regulating our breathing.

The science behind pranayama is not as simple as breath controlling the mind. But I don't think I am qualified to write anything on it. At a rudimentary level it is about cleaning nerves, at medium level it helps us connect to the world of spirits, in ultimate count it is the basis of the play of creation.

saidevo
23 February 2009, 05:21 AM
Namaste Singhi Kaya.



• Mind by itself (along with its constitutents of 'chitta, manas and ahaMkAra' form its own vesture, the 'manomaya koSha' or the mental body. The physical body and the vital body do not function 'directly under the control of the blissful body'. They function only under the control of the mind. It is the mind that always rules over the physical body.




This is a misconception, for example in your sleep body functions perfectly OK.


If our bodies and emotions and mind were directly controlled by our 'ichChA shakti' or will--in other words our Atma--(instead of the mind, the 'kriyA shakti') why all this toil and trouble in this world? Everyone of us would be having perfect bodies suitable for fast spiritual development, and Kali Yuga would never have set in.

On the other hand, our mind has a tremendous control over our physical body. Yoganandha in his 'Autobiography' has demonstrated it by self-curing a boil that suddenly appeared on his hand. In our waking state, all our outward physical actions have their origin only in the mind.

What about deep sleep, as you have rightly asked. Yes, in deep sleep the body functions perfectly OK, apparently without the knowledge of the mind, but this is more like the 'suspend or sleep' state of a personal computer or the 'auto pilot' of an aeroplane, with the mind lurking behind to step in at the slightest disturbance. This is why a person in deep sleep wakes up at a mere touch or name calling. The internal body functions are perhaps 'pre-programmed' and 'automated' by the 'chitta' part of the mind.

JnAnis have stated that despite their oneness with Brahman at all times, they too have a 'shuddha manas' (pure mind) that has no worldy thoughts or desires or spawns no gross emotions/feelings. I think that the mind is not entirely destroyed in deep sleep, but remains as a 'shuddha manas', reflecting only the light of the Atma, though it is withdraws into the Atma. The reason that we are not aware of the bliss of the deep sleep state is perhaps that our 'vijnAnamaya' and 'Anandamaya koShas' are not adequately developed.

The 'pancha koShas' are fully developed in an enlightened person, wrapping over and containing one another with the 'annamaya koSha' (physical body) as the innermost and the 'Anandamaya koSha' as the outermost, exerting its influence of Ananda all around the person. The Atma sits at the center of all the 'koShas', in the cave of the heart, and shines like the sun over the planets. For average persons, the 'vijnAnamaya' and the 'Anandamaya koShas' are far less developed and wrap over their contents only as thin layers.

Just as the sunlight only initiates the process of creation and hands it over to other agents, Atma hands over control, supervision and development of the 'koShas' to their respective agents, remaining only a witness thereafter.

It is also more like our Atma, who is Brahman, handing over the 'samsAra' (World Process) to the 'trimUrti'--Brahma the mind, VishNu the 'buddhi' or wisdom, and Rudra the Jiva or Will. As above so below and everywhere.



The science behind pranayama is not as simple as breath controlling the mind. But I don't think I am qualified to write anything on it. At a rudimentary level it is about cleaning nerves, at medium level it helps us connect to the world of spirits, in ultimate count it is the basis of the play of creation.


I am not qualified either, but I think it is right to say that practice of breath control greatly influences and controls the mind, even at the rudimentary level.

The very name 'manuShya' for man is derived from his 'manas' or mind. Once born in a physical body, he cannot escape its rule and influence, whether he is a novice or a jnAni.

yajvan
23 February 2009, 08:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
Namasté saidevo,

you write,


but I think it is right to say that practice of breath control greatly influences and controls the mind, even at the rudimentary level.

Perhaps the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8.2) offers us a clue, it suggests the following:
A bird bound to a point by a string after having flown to various directions and having found no place to rest, finally comes back to the point it is bound to. Like that, it is that mind ( the subtle aspect of food) having flown in various directions of interest and finding no place to rest finally comes back to prāṇa ( the subtle aspect of water) because mind, my dear¹ is bound to prāṇa

also,


What about deep sleep, as you have rightly asked. Yes, in deep sleep the body functions perfectly OK, apparently without the knowledge of the mind, but this is more like the 'suspend or sleep' state of a personal computer or the 'auto pilot' of an aeroplane, with the mind lurking behind to step in at the slightest disturbance.

It is said svapana (sleep) is the state in which the mind, prāṇa and speech go back to their source.
If we consider we are sattā ( Being, Existence) in our nature and not a fanciful idea or construct, it suggests then that this level is reached in svapana i.e. the 3 components mind, prāṇa and speech , that which make us individualized, return to the source. Mind in prāṇa, prāṇa in speech and speech in sattā.

This chapter 6 of Chāndogya Upaniṣad has much to do with food, prāṇa, speech, etc. comes from and goes to sattā. Your answers maybe found here, or at a minimum some insights worthy of consideration.
praṇām

references
my dear - this is Uddālaka-āruṇi speaking to his son, Śvetaketu