Am I reading this right?

[satay]

In the book "The Principal Upanishads" Translated and Edited by Swami Nikhilananda page 252:
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
VI. iv. I8

If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the vedas, and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son.

bull meat???:headscratch:

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Satay,

mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” ;) , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” ! :eek:

aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !

[Arjuna]

Namaste Satay,

mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” ;) , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” ! :eek:

aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !

Namaste,

However academic translation available to me speaks about beef. Moreover it is well known that cow meat was taken as food in Vedic times.
There is nothing striking in beef consumption in those days. Prohibition was developed later.

[sarabhanga]

mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” !

aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !

Following Shri Shankaracarya (rather than Max Müller or Robert Hume):

mAMsamishramodanaM mAMsaudanam |
tanmAMsaniyamArthamAha-auksheM vA mAMsena |
ukshA secanasamarthaH puÑgavastadIyaM mAMsam |
RSabhastato 'pyadhikavayAstadIyamArSabhaM mAMsam ||

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Namaste,

However academic translation available to me speaks about beef. Moreover it is well known that cow meat was taken as food in Vedic times.
There is nothing striking in beef consumption in those days. Prohibition was developed later.

Are you implying that it is then ok to kill cows and eat beef even though there is plenty of vegetarian food available that can actually feed more people? ~BYS~

[Arjuna]

Are you implying that it is then ok to kill cows and eat beef even though there is plenty of vegetarian food available that can actually feed more people? ~BYS~

Aryans were originally nomads who naturally ate horse meat. Then they settled and started breeding cows for milk and meat. Vedic times animals were supposed to be killed sacrificially or on hunting. An idea of "sinfulness" of meat consumption was a product of a later period.

[Arjuna]

Following Shri Shankaracarya (rather than Max Müller or Robert Hume):

Namaste,

With all respect to Acharya Bhagavatpada, i deem his explanation to be artificial. Seeing that in Vedas we do have animal sacrifices there is nothing strange that Brihadaranyaka speaks of meat consumption. By the time of Acharya things changed, Vedic cult faded away. Thus new explanations which have little to do with original meaning.

[Sudarshan]

Aryans were originally nomads who naturally ate horse meat. Then they settled and started breeding cows for milk and meat. Vedic times animals were supposed to be killed sacrificially or on hunting. An idea of "sinfulness" of meat consumption was a product of a later period.

If you are beleiving in the evolution of religion like this, isn't it logical to consider that the idea of stopping meat consumption was an evolution of human thought too? They must have discovered that abstinance from meat was a superior to consumption of it - and must have faciliated their practice. Animal killer will tend to more cruel than one who does not do it, and is more in tune with the principle of non violence. If you do not feel bad at the sight of splitting of an animal head, then your heart must possibly be made of stone, immune to the suffering of others.

[Arjuna]

If you are beleiving in the evolution of religion like this, isn't it logical to consider that the idea of stopping meat consumption was an evolution of human thought too? They must have discovered that abstinance from meat was a superior to consumption of it - and must have faciliated their practice. Animal killer will tend to more cruel than one who does not do it, and is more in tune with the principle of non violence. If you do not feel bad at the sight of splitting of an animal head, then your heart must possibly be made of stone, immune to the suffering of others.

Namaste,

I was speaking about an evolution of society and not religion.
Though verily religion also changes according to society and level of human consciousness, it doesn't mean that every later stage is ALWAYS a higher one (in such case Sikhism is the summit of Sanatana-dharma; nothing against Sikhism though).

Vegetarianism is a special diet which has nothing to do with being spiritual or not. Whether it is really good for health is a matter of medical science and not religion.

Religion only speaks of RITUAL consumption of meat and RITUAL killing animals in sacrifices. Apart from this one may keep veg diet, it's up to him. Many Kaula upasakas are vegetarians in normal life and take meat solely in rituals. However agan, diet is not a matter of religion, but of medical science.

Why vegetarianism got spread so much — it was due to political reasons related to Buddhism and general increase of the role of sannyasins (as opposed to Vedic married priests). It was not an "evolution of human thought" but a successfull attempt of certain group to manipulate the society.
I do not say it is bad, but such is the thing.

Anyone is free to be a vegetarian and preach the same to others, but no need to falsify historical & textual facts as many people do. And no need to invent "spiritual" reasons for that as well.
Certian trends in Hinduism DEMAND meat consumption as part of ritual worship. Such was a case of Vedic religion, whether one likes this or not.

Regarding "feeling bad": too many "good Hindus" who feel bad at the sight of cutting a head of a cow do not feel bad when "enemies"-muslims are killed or when women suffer from awkward social rules mixed into religion. I see this as a hypocrisy.
Moreover, if one feels he has no right to take life of an animal how can he take life of a plant? Isn't it also alive? Because one THINKS that plants are "less conscious"? And who said that?
In fact a vegetarian is doing the same thing as non-vegetarian: HE HIMSELF DECIDES WHAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO KILL & EAT. Non-violence is usually a mask. The reason very frequently is subtle ego. "Oh, I AM the vegetarian. A spiritual person. So compassionate and pure." Rather having this wonderful idea in one's head it is better to be non-attached to food. Whatever food life brings to us we can eat if we naturally feel to. Why artificially reject some and select another?

[Sudarshan]

Moreover, if one feels he has no right to take life of an animal how can he take life of a plant? Isn't it also alive? Because one THINKS that plants are "less conscious"? And who said that?


Is there any reason apart from the fear of getting punished by law, that you dont eat human flesh? And animals are not "less conscious" than man by your same token.

[saidevo]

Kanchi Paramacharya (Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati)'s exposition on the sacrifice of animals in the Vedic yajnas of yore:



There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later when I deal with "Kalpa" (an Anga or limb of the Vedas) aaand "Grihasthasrama" (the stage of the householder). What I wish to state here is that animals are not killed in all sacrifices. There are a number of yagnas in which only ghee (ajya) is offered in the fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with ghee) is offered and in some the cooked grains called "caru" or "purodasa", a kind of baked cake. In agnihotri milk is poured into the fire; in aupasana unbroken rice grains (aksata) are used; and in samidadhana the sticks of the palasa (flame of the forest). In sacrifices in which the vapa of animals is offered, only a tiny bit of the remains of the burnt offering is partaken of - and of course in the form of prasada.

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three types: pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed.

"Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned.

It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to satisfy their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the deities was only a pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste. There may be various reasons for you to attack the system of sacrifices but it would be preposterous to do so on the score that Brahmins practised deception by making them a pretext to eat meat.

Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the laboratories as guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a little hurt caused in the cause of a great ideal, the welfare of mankind. As a matter of fact there is no hurt caused since the animal sacrificed attains to an elevated state.

There is another falsehood spread these days, that Brahmins performed the somayajnas only as a pretext to drink somarasa (the essence of the soma plant). Those who propagate this lie add that drinking somarasa is akin to imbibing liquor or wine. As a matter of fact somarasa is not an intoxicating drink. There is a reference in the Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage.

The principle on which the physiology of deities is based is superior to that of humans. That apart, to say that the priests drank bottle after bottle of somarasa or pot after pot is to betray gross ignorance of the Vedic dharma. The soma plant is pounded and crushed in a small mortar called "graha". There are rules with regard to the quantity of essence to be offered to the gods. The small portion that remains after the oblation has been made, "huta-sesa", which is drunk drop by drop, does not add up to more than an ounce. No one has been knocked out by such drinking. They say that somarasa is not very palatable. .

The preposterous suggestion is made that somarasa was the coffee of those times. There are Vedic mantras which speak about the joy aroused by drinking it. This has been misinterpreted. While coffee is injurious to the mind, somarasa cleanses it. It is absurd to equate the two. The soma plant was available in plenty in ancient times. Now it is becoming more and more scarce: this indeed is in keeping with the decline of Vedic dharma. In recent years, the Raja of Kollengode made it a point to supply the soma plant for the soma sacrifice wherever it was held.

Source: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm

[Arjuna]

Is there any reason apart from the fear of getting punished by law, that you dont eat human flesh? And animals are not "less conscious" than man by your same token.

If U ask my view, everything is less conscious than man. That is why man has a rights to use all objects.
I was speaking about inconsistency in vegetarianism ideas. IF U say "i have no right to kill an animal," then U cannot kill a plant as well.
But if i do not kill people (and i state that killing people is inacceptible apart from emergency cases like self-protection or protection of others from violence) it doesn't imply i cannot eat meat or plants. Exactly because these are not human beings.

[saidevo]

Moreover, if one feels he has no right to take life of an animal how can he take life of a plant? Isn't it also alive? Because one THINKS that plants are "less conscious"? And who said that?
In fact a vegetarian is doing the same thing as non-vegetarian: HE HIMSELF DECIDES WHAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO KILL & EAT.




Is there any reason apart from the fear of getting punished by law, that you dont eat human flesh? And animals are not "less conscious" than man by your same token.


Kanchi Paramacharya replies to these questions in this exposition:



Making All Creatures Happy
(HinduDharma: Dharmas Common To All)

We must not fail to perform sacrifices to the celestials, offer libations to our fathers and perform sraddha. In the past, apart from these, our ancestors did puja to the gods, fed guests and performed vaisvadeva which rite is meant for all creatures. You must have some idea of these rites even if you do not perform them. I will speak to you about vaisvadeva.

To sustain ourselves, we cause hurt to so many creatures, don't we? We take pride in keeping our house clean but we forget that every household is a butchery. According to dharmasastras it is not one butchery but five butcheries together. What are these five?

Pancasuna grhasthasya vartante harahah sada
Khandani pesani culli jalkumbha upaskarah

Khandani is used to cut vegetables- it stands for one type of butchery. Vegetables also do have life. The second butchery is represented by the grinding our pounding stone. We mercilessly grind corn, pulses, etc, in it.

Here an answer must be given to objections raised by meat-eaters about vegetarian food. They tell us:"Like the goats, cows and fowl that we eat, vegetables and cereals also have life." True. Though there is no difference in kind between them, there is a difference in the degree of violence done to vegetables and animals. Plants have life and feelings like humans but they do not have the sensation of pain to the same degree as animals and birds have. This has been scientifically established. Also, but for certain leafy vegetables which we uproot to be prepared as food, most other vegetables are obtained from plants without killing them: it is like removing our nails or hair. The plant suffers only a little pain. Pain even to this degree will not be caused if we eat the fruits of these plants after they drop ripe. As for the cereals they are harvested only after the crop is ripe and dry.

...People who think it civilized to eat birds and animals condemn tribes in some remote land who eat human flesh as barbarous and call them cannibals. We must tell meat-eaters who remind us that vegetables also have life. "Yes, but when it comes to violence, are all creatures the same? Why do you make a difference between animal flesh and human flesh? Similarly, we make a distinction between plants and animals. Vegetarianism also promotes sattvic qualities. "Unavoidably, for the sake of existence, we have to keep at home instruments of butchery like the khandani, pesani, etc.

The third butchery is represented by the culli or the kitchen fire. Many insects perish in the cooking fire. An ant crawls about the oven or fireplace and is burnt. Sometimes when we keep a pot on the floor or the shelf an insect or two get crushed. In the summer insects come seeking wet places, places for example where vessels are kept. The water-pot is also included among the objects of butchery. Then there is the upaskara, the broomstick. Aren't many tiny insects killed as we sweep the floor? Thus there are five instruments or objects of butchery in our home.

We must not cause harm even to those creatures that hurt us. But what do we do? We cause pain to, or kill, even harmless creatures. It is sad to think that to live, to sustain ourselves, we have to keep hurting so many living things. But it all seems unavoidable. We do not kill deliberately. There is an expiation for the sin committed unwittingly. It is the prayascitta of the "vaisvadeva". We perform this function to ask the Lord to forgive us our sin of having caused the destruction of various creatures and to pray for their happiness in afterlife. Vaisvadeva is meant for the excommunicated and for all creatures of earth like dogs, crows, insects, all. This rite absolves us of many a sin.

The pancha-mahayajnas were conducted for eons by the sages, by the children of Brahma. All performed them from the hoary past until the time of our grandfathers. The five great sacrifices are to be performed uninterruptedly until the deluge. But we have had the "good fortune" of having broken this tradition. Worse, we have deprived future generations of the benefits to be derived from them.

I have dealt with a variety of rites. Perform at least those you can without prejudice to your office or professional work. If you fail to do so you must be regretful and make amends for the same.

Source: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part22/chap8.htm

[Sudarshan]

Beautiful post Saidevo.

While I dont think that everyone should be a plant eater ( there is a risk of running out of plant food or plant food becoming expensive), but meat eating is definitely more primitive than plant eating for religeous people. Plants dont shriek and shout when we cut - animals visibly suffer torture when they are cut. Just visit a slaughter house and decide...

Of two evils, always choose the lesser one - that is the idea of vegetarianism. If plant food is unavailable or not consumable due to some definite reasons( health, finance etc), then it is allright. It may also be allright to eat an animal that died naturally for those who badly want it.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Aryans were originally nomads who naturally ate horse meat. Then they settled and started breeding cows for milk and meat. Vedic times animals were supposed to be killed sacrificially or on hunting. An idea of "sinfulness" of meat consumption was a product of a later period.

It is worth pointing out, however, that if you take a given plot of land and use it for the production of vegetables that it uses less water, fossil fuels, and other materials per pound of food and in turn also produces much more food that can feed far more people than if you instead used the same plot of land to raise and kill animals on for food. Therefore, since it is a Hindu's duty of ahimsa to take care of the environment as reasonably as possible, Hindus should encourage the production and consumption of vegetarian food over non-vegetarian. ~BYS~

[Arjuna]

It is worth pointing out, however, that if you take a given plot of land and use it for the production of vegetables that it uses less water, fossil fuels, and other materials per pound of food and in turn also produces much more food that can feed far more people than if you instead used the same plot of land to raise and kill animals on for food. Therefore, since it is a Hindu's duty of ahimsa to take care of the environment as reasonably as possible, Hindus should encourage the production and consumption of vegetarian food over non-vegetarian. ~BYS~

Namaste,

I agree with this.
I even think that it would be better for human beings to switch to fish only instead of meat. Fish is much more useful and we got plenty of it. While pure vegan diet is harmful to body, veg + milk + fish provides everything needed.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Namaste,

I agree with this.
I even think that it would be better for human beings to switch to fish only instead of meat. Fish is much more useful and we got plenty of it. While pure vegan diet is harmful to body, veg + milk + fish provides everything needed.

Fish isn't necessary for the body, either, however. I have read that a vegan diet is risky but have known perfectly healthy vegans. They have to work hard to make sure that they get all the nutrients the body needs and especially need to pay close attention to vitamin B12. As to fish, not everyone lives by the sea and even though modern technology makes it rather easy to ship food far from its origin, this is still a waste of resources that isn't necessary. At the very least, if a Hindu is to take fish, he/she should do so in moderation and only once in a while rather than indulging excessively in it. I, however, am a somewhat strict vegetarian in that I do not eat meat, fish, poultry, or animal products that can only be derived by killing the animal, and limit eggs. I have also very little health problems. I read one time that it is ok for a Hindu to take any type of meat if the animal died naturally although it is still considered non-sattvic. So a Hindu who doesn't wish to have a sattvic diet but who wishes to eat cruelty-free and environment-friendly food would only take meat, fish, etc. if it was free of charge and would go to waste anyway if they didn't take it. The seafood industry, however, also has been detrimental to the environment as well as engaged in creulty and no Hindu should support it. ~BYS~

[atanu]

Some pure vegetarians are in business of killing animals etc. Such as those in pearl business and many such. While a widely sung hunter devotee who gave his eyes to Shiva is known to be a meat eater.

I feel, while it is always preferable to have sattwik veg food to control rajo and tamo gunas, but on account of parampara and particular cultural/geographical requirements a general rule may not apply.

Swami Vivekananda is known to have advised non veg diet for particular nature of subdued indians at his time. While for Ramana maharshi non veg food is as good as poison.

[Sudarshan]

Fish isn't necessary for the body, either, however. I have read that a vegan diet is risky but have known perfectly healthy vegans. They have to work hard to make sure that they get all the nutrients the body needs and especially need to pay close attention to vitamin B12. As to fish, not everyone lives by the sea and even though modern technology makes it rather easy to ship food far from its origin, this is still a waste of resources that isn't necessary. At the very least, if a Hindu is to take fish, he/she should do so in moderation and only once in a while rather than indulging excessively in it. I, however, am a somewhat strict vegetarian in that I do not eat meat, fish, poultry, or animal products that can only be derived by killing the animal, and limit eggs. I have also very little health problems. I read one time that it is ok for a Hindu to take any type of meat if the animal died naturally although it is still considered non-sattvic. So a Hindu who doesn't wish to have a sattvic diet but who wishes to eat cruelty-free and environment-friendly food would only take meat, fish, etc. if it was free of charge and would go to waste anyway if they didn't take it. The seafood industry, however, also has been detrimental to the environment as well as engaged in creulty and no Hindu should support it. ~BYS~

I had a feeling that fish was possibly suitable from a financial point of view. The maid in my house used to say that without fish her family would have to go hungry as they cannot afford costly veg food.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

All that follows is repeated, but some seem to have missed the point.

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

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

Most non-vegetarians do not see their meat eating as anything sacred ~ they merely deny that there is any spiritual importance in one’s diet beyond staying physically strong and healthy.

Meat has always been included in the diet of non-Brahmana Hindus, but until very recently the animals were always ritually killed and only on special occasions. And this is still ALWAYS the case in traditional Hindu villages throughout India.

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

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

Vegetarian diet does not automatically make one spiritual, although true spirituality generally leads to vegetarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH [Yoga Sutra 2.30]

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

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

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

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

Noah received the eternal commandment “Do not cause Bloodshed!”.
Moses received the eternal commandment “Do not commit Murder!”
The foundation of Christianity is “Do not Kill!”
The Athenian Solon (c. 600 BC) declared “Do Good!”
And Patanjali repeats the original (and most general) formulation Ahimsa ~ “Without Harm”.

All Dharma MUST be understood with “Harmlessness” as a fundamental assumption; and all Hindus, all Jews, all Christians, and all Muslims, MUST interpret their scriptures and limit their actions in accordance with this basic principle of civilized humanity.

Ahimsa is Dharma; and Himsa is Adharma. The rule is as simple as that!

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.

The basic law of Ahimsa, at its lowest level of interpretation, is “Do not commit murder” ~ and this Shudra Dharma is well known throughout the world.

The basic law of Vaishya Dharma (i.e. the prime directive for the general Hindu population) is “Do not spill blood” ~ and thus the general prevalence of non-violence and vegetarian diet in Hindu society.

The fifth rule given to Noah was “shed no blood”, which is the sixth rule of Moses, commonly stated as “do not kill” or “do not murder”.

The very first rule of Hinduism in practice is Ahimsa ~ i.e. to be “without harm” and “harmless”, or (positively expressed) “with love” and “kind”.

The divine law of Ahimsa (unconditional love towards ALL beings) leads one to Ganesha (the Isha of Ganas or the “Lord of Beings”) who swiftly removes any obstacle to salvation.

Ahimsa paramo Dharma

[atanu]

Namaste,


Ahimsa paramo Dharma



I have just posted Devi Kalottara. A few lines from that here.

69. Listen to me, Lady! Know that only the wise man who never does anything which leads to the destruction of any form of life, such as insects, worms, birds or plants, is a person who is seeking true knowledge.


70. He (the true aspirant) should not pull out tender roots of fragrant plants, he should not even pluck the leaves; he should not harm any living thing out of anger; he should not heartlessly pluck even flowers.


71-72. He should worship Lord Siva using only flowers that have fallen naturally. He should not indulge in vile practices such as marana (causing destruction through the use of certain mantras) uchadana (driving one out with the force of mantras), vidveshana (causing mutual hatred between friends), the well known sthambana (freezing one’s capabilities), causing fever, putting into action evil spirits, causing agitation, wrongly taking control of others, attracting and infatuating others, and so on. Abandon the worship of stones, wooden objects and similar articles.


Also for the true Avadhutas:


63. Niyamas (strict rules of conduct such as what to eat, when to eat, how to eat, what to wear, where to sit and so on), worship of deities in sacred places, nama archanas (worship of deities by reciting sacred names), pitru karmas (oblations, etc., carried out for the sake of forefathers to help them reach a high state), pilgrimage to holy places which have come forth on earth, and observance of great vows, are all not for him (the earnest aspirant), if considered deeply.


64. He does not reap the fruit of actions, good or bad. Important dates and special observances zealously followed by the world are not for him. Give up all actions and all kinds of worldly codes of conduct.


Om

[chandu_69]

There are several posts on this subject in hindudharma forums itself.
Rig Veda X.87.16 One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal and deprives others from milk by slaughtering cows ; if such a fiend does not desist then even cut off their heads by your powers Oh king.


Atharva Veda VIII.6.23 : Those who eat cooked or uncooked flesh, who eat eggs and embryos are following an evil addiction that must be put to an end.


That meat eating was strictly prohibited was evident from several quotes.There were some exceptions in Yagnas, and that they were not meant to Enable meat eating is abundantly clear.

[devotee]

There are several posts on this subject in hindudharma forums itself.
Rig Veda X.87.16 One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal and deprives others from milk by slaughtering cows ; if such a fiend does not desist then even cut off their heads by your powers Oh king.


Atharva Veda VIII.6.23 : Those who eat cooked or uncooked flesh, who eat eggs and embryos are following an evil addiction that must be put to an end.


That meat eating was strictly prohibited was evident from several quotes.There were some exceptions in Yagnas, and that they were not meant to Enable meat eating is abundantly clear.

Namaste Chandu,

Thanks for quotes ! :)

OM

[Eastern Mind]

There are several posts on this subject in hindudharma forums itself.


Thank you for following this strategy. I think it needs to be reinforced somewhere, so we don't keep seeing the same movies, answering the same old questions. HDF isn't so vast that you can't find anything, and our moderator keeps it very well organised. BTW .. welcome.

Aum Namasivaya

[chandu_69]

Namaste devotee and eastern mind.
Thanks for the welcome.
Yes, it is easier to search for posts in the forums.
For those who are not aware here is the syntax for google site search
subject site:www.hindudharmaforums.com (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com)