Non veggie?

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

We know of some saints being non vegetarian. Are there any traditions that do not emphasize vegetarianism?

[ScottMalaysia]

Shaktas generally don't emphasize vegetarianism. Some of them even practice animal sacrifice.

[Spiritualseeker]

Interesting, are there any good links on Shaktism?

[gkan64]

Well, it is more a question of what you feel after living with Him since you moved into the spiritual abode. I have been a non-vegetarian and loved the stuff. I was always spiritualy inclined and slowly my thinking changed from a Non-vegetarian then to a Pure Vegetarian now. I felt it was a pre-requisite to be able to start the spiritual journey. The basis is that you aren't born a carnivore like some animals and if you can surivive on the food provided by plants you have no right to kill and make a meal out of a living creature.


A friend of my wife who had been a vegetarian all her life is fond of saying that she doen't want a cemetry inside of her whenever there was talk of food involving meat.


I guess it is listening to your inner voice rather than following others.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

thank you for your response. I wanted to say though that when we eat plants we know that plants also have consciousness. So how do we draw the line? Some plants even have defense mechanism against attackers. Some even capture insects. So i know for sure that plants, trees, etc are all living just like us.

[Eastern Mind]

SS: Namaste again.
I am wondering which it is: a search that continues, or
an inability of the will to either give up meat, or
the inability to accept that not giving up meat isn`t the end of the world, yet acknowledging that it is still a barrier to progress.

Aum Namasivaya

[Govind Joshi]

Namashkar!
Well animal life and plant life can't be compared just as the life of an animal can't be compared to human. Otherwise why would we detest from eating all kind of meats.

The inablilty to give up meat is slavery to the senses. If we can not come out of that, what spirituality are we talking about. It is spirituality of convinence where we are not willing to part with our weaknesses and yet profess to be a seeker.

To me it was a prerequisite, it takes a lot of will and lot of time to do that but the pleasures are eternal. My mind is more at peace now than when I was a meat eater.

Thanks

[sunyata07]

Namaste SS,

Good points on eating vegetables. What you've said is very true. Plants are as much living, conscious and sentient as humans and animals are. Nobody who has a real appreciation for all kinds of lifeforms could ever say otherwise! People will say they are beings of lower consciousness, and yes, in many ways they are: they don't have brains, nervous systems or the same pain receptors in animals, they are (most of them anyway) immobile and can only react to certain kinds of stimuli.

But plants really do play a special role in the world. Consider it from a scientific point of view (I can't help it, being a past biology student and plant lover! :) ): for any ecosystem on the earth to function, energy needs to be freely and widely available to life forms. Remembering that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only passed from one form to the next, energy needs to "flow" through organisms within a hierarchy. I'm not going to get too technical about it, but basically, energy that exist in higher animals like humans depend on the energies of other animals, and so on till we come down to insects and eventually plants. In this way, ultimately plants look after all other organisms by providing them with sustenance! Not to mention they provide us with oxygen. If you also look at energy pyramids you can see how much energy is lost as you go down the food chain (from eating meat), but there is a significant amount of energy contained still from a diet of plants because no energy is lost from this chain.

So... theoretically, would it be less of a sin to take the life of a plant? No. They are living entities just like every other organism! But one remembers that Vedic saying: jiva jivasya jivanam - the life of one organism exists for the life of another. The circle of life from which all things receive and give energy. Nothing can live on nothing. The importance in all of this is awareness of this passing of energy, and treating the plants that provide us with life-giving energy with the same respect we would show animals. In this way we will never hold that arrogant and dangerous assumption that we as evolutionarily more "advanced" animals are separate from the things that lend us our very survival and our nourishment.

OM Shanti

[Spiritualseeker]

That is a wonderful post sunyata! You make biology seem so much more interesting then sometimes it is in our textbooks. I used to think of many beings as not really living. Even bugs and other insects. But I realize in each of these things, be it a bug, rat, human, or a tree are all expressions of life. It is life itself manifesting in a physical form. I really think there is not that much difference. Though yes I know the Vedas do emphasize vegetarianism, I just second guess the suggestion for a couple of reasons. One is that I dont think plant life should be distinguished. And second I find it odd that we are born with teeth that are designed to eat meat. In addition certain areas it is almost impossible to live at without consuming meats.

But I must again emphasize that I do know that the Vedas promote vegetarianism. But I am a foolish being who cannot be vegetarian.

OM
-juan

[devotee]

Namaste Sunyata and SS,



So... theoretically, would it be less of a sin to take the life of a plant? No. They are living entities just like every other organism! But one remembers that Vedic saying: jiva jivasya jivanam - the life of one organism exists for the life of another.


One is that I dont think plant life should be distinguished. And second I find it odd that we are born with teeth that are designed to eat meat. In addition certain areas it is almost impossible to live at without consuming meats.

I won't say that what you say is wrong but there is another angle which needs our attention :

Yes, there is nothing Right or Wrong in absolute sense ... but there is something Right & at the same time something Wrong in a given circumstances. Plants & Animals are both forms of life ... but all forms of life are not at the same level of consciousness. Though a stone too has consciousness within it but is it of the same level as a plant has ? The Stone "knows" how far the other other stone is & what its mass is but can it take a reasoned decision ? Similarly, both plants & animals have life but do they have similar developed sense organs & mind ? A cut on my body cannot give me pain if my brain is not as developed to identify the cut & create a reaction what we understand as "pain". If you kill a person who has a family ... you are not ending one life but also creating pains in the life of others who are dependent on him or are associated with him ... it is not the same when we kill a plant.

All plants are also not the same. You may cut some plants & actually you are helping in their growth. Does it apply to animals too ? You may keep eating fruits of a plant without killing that plant.

I was a non-vegetarian but now have turned to vegetarian. Why ? Because I don't want to be the cause of pains & end of lives of the animals for my food when other alternatives are available. Because, eating meat doesn't make me more healthy, so why kill ? Yes, I do have both types of teeth which ( Dr Naik keeps quoting ad-nauseam) & thus "God" has given me freedom to eat both types of food. But God has given me freedom of many kinds & has left me to decide what is good or bad for me ... because he made me the most intelligent among animals ... So, God expects that I will use my power of reasoning & take a correct decision in spite of the freedom given to me. I can engage in sexual interaction with any girl ... that freedom is available with me but I have a mind too which says that exercising that option is dangerous for me !

So, what my reasoning says :

a) I can feel the pains & sufferings of animals when they are killed & I don't want to be the cause for their pains & end of life.I don't feel same in case of a plant.
b) Animals have more developed sense organs, nervous system & brain than the plants. It appears logical to save a higher form of life at the cost of a lower form of life.
c) If we agree to eat animals too ... where do I stop eating ? Why should I not eat my fellow human beings ? What is the difference anyway ? I must stop somewhere. I must have a sense of proportion to behave in a right manner.
d) I have an option that I can live happily without ending the happiness of the animals, so why take the path of sufferings ? Situation might have been different if I didn't have an option. I might have been born in a place where life would have been impossible without eating animals. Then because I am a human being i.e. a higher life form ... my living by killing animals for food could have been justified ... in the same way as I cannot survive without killing millions of bacteria every minute within by body-system.
e) I eat meat not because my survival is at stake. I eat animals because I like the taste of the cooked meat. So, it is my taste buds Vs someone's life ... it is not my life vs Someone's life. I think I can keep my taste buds in control.

OM

[sunyata07]

Namaste Devotee,



But God has given me freedom of many kinds & has left me to decide what is good or bad for me ... because he made me the most intelligent among animals ... So, God expects that I will use my power of reasoning & take a correct decision in spite of the freedom given to me. I can engage in sexual interaction with any girl ... that freedom is available with me but I have a mind too which says that exercising that option is dangerous for me !


Absolutely. I agree with this entirely. I think what very clearly defines us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our innate self-awareness. We are the only animals capable of questioning our actions and ask things like: Is what I am doing right? Will my actions have negative repercussions, and for whom? Why is it important to question what I do? We have also been given not only the power to look at ourselves, but at other things around us. We may have the evolutionary blessing of brain size and power as well as deductive reasoning skills, but we also the evolutionary responsibility to look after our world and all other creatures.

For most people, meat really is a luxury food. It is not only quite filling, but I think the idea of the heat and the taste appeals to a lot of people. I myself will admit I sometimes think my mother's cooking can smell horribly tempting! Being a veggie eater then, is not only having an acute sensitivity towards all moving creatures in the world (unless you are vegetarian purely for health reasons), but also in some cases having strong will power. As you have said, it is a case of being able to reason with the mind: I can live very healthily and happily without this, so why shouldn't I? In this way, the mind is always in control. It is the master of the body, not the slave. The same follows naturally for the other bodily senses like sexual activity, overindulgence of alcohol, narcotics and foreign substances.

SS, don't beat yourself up about it. You do have a very good point about world location. We can't forget that there are places in the world that are much too cold, remote and overall inhabitable for many cereals and staple plant diets. Humans and animals themselves struggle to survive in harsh winter conditions in places far North of the equator like Siberia and Greenland. Culture is another big factor to consider. Many places in India I would imagine are a haven for people hoping to be vegetarian. Asia itself has a mind-boggling plethora of edible and delicious fruits, vegetables, grains and lentils! If you are living in the West your attempts at leading a more green lifestyle will be curbed somewhat, seeing as meat is such a big part of the Western diet. The fruits imported to my country are usually of the lowest and poorest grade, priced at exorbitant rates, and only seasonal! :/ Not very encouraging for someone who has to figure out to try and have a balanced diet.

Don't forget that humans are naturally omnivores (not to undermine your points, Devotee!), capable of taking sustenance from both plant and animal. While I am most definitely pro-vegetarian, I will not angrily upbraid someone for not following my lifestyle in any way. It may sound contradictory, but I'm not sure I am even against (most) people for eating meat. It is really a relative thing in my opinion. Far worse than simple meat-eating is the origin and raising of the animal - factory and chicken battery farming is something that I would protest vehemently. It is cruel, unnecessary, and just goes against nature itself. I am always trying to get my friends and family to purchase meat from organic farms where animals are not cooped up in tiny pens, trapped within four walls and never seeing the sun until the day they are slaughtered. So in a sense, meat-eating actually is much more than just the mere consumption of flesh. It goes back to what I was saying is important: the attitude of the consumer, and always having awareness in one's actions.

[Spiritualseeker]

Thank you Sunyata. It is difficult when one says though that you have to be vegetarian to really progress deeper. I understand their reasoning though I am still uncertain. Malarepa and many Tibetan yogis attained enlightenment and they ate meat. But I know this would open up some controversy.


I found this to be a great read though it is from a Buddhist perspective http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/vegi.html

[devotee]

It is difficult when one says though that you have to be vegetarian to really progress deeper. I understand their reasoning though I am still uncertain. Malarepa and many Tibetan yogis attained enlightenment and they ate meat. But I know this would open up some controversy.


You are unnecessary worried about this, SS ! Not all Hindus are vegetarian & not all sects within Hinduism follow vegetarianism. In fact, not long ago, it was almost customary sacrificing animals during Durga Puja & KAli Puja. This disappeared slowly & now it is banned in India. It is still practised in Nepal though, as it is not banned there. The meat after the sacrifice is eaten as PrasAdam. I think there is ample proof that RAma, Lakshman & Sita ate meat while living in the forest. As I told you earlier too, Hinduism don't bind you to any particular dogma. You have freedom to think, reason & decide the correct course of action. You remember, one man's meat is another man's poison ? IMO, that applies here too. Normally the Brahmins are vegetarian. A Tamil Brahmin will refuse eating if he suspects that someone who has touched meat has touched the food offered to him. However, the Bengali Brahman & the Maithili Brahmins won't eat without fish. I have seen meat & fish being offered at KAmakhya Temple in Assam.

If you have to become vegetarian, it should come from within & certainly should not be forced. When a Butcher can become enlightened as narrated in VAdh Gita, why not the Non-vegetarians ?

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


I think there is ample proof that RAma, Lakshman & Sita ate meat while living in the forest.

OM


Even at fear of being rebuked for asking for proof, can you please provide relevant scripture evidence that Maryada Purushotam Ram, ate meat in the forest, does not bode well of Raghu kul, in the lineage of sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pigeon

While I agree many people eat meat for various reason, I was one of them misguided in my youth , so I am in no position to judge, but I am ready to quit Dharma if it is proved that Ram ate meat.

Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To think that he could not measure up to his ancestor King Sigi is unbelievable.



If you have to become vegetarian, it should come from within & certainly should not be forced.

I agree

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,



can you please provide relevant scripture evidence that Maryada Purushotam Ram, ate meat in the forest, does not bode well of Raghu kul, in the lineage of sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pigeon

While I agree many people eat meat for various reason, I was one of them misguided in my youth , so I am in no position to judge, but I am ready to quit Dharma if it is proved that Ram ate meat.


You are asking for the proof & yet threatening to quit Dharma ? Do you think I can take that risk ? For me, your continuance on the path of Dharma is more important than my being right.

So, better I keep mum. If you think I have no proof & what I said is wrong, let it be so.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Satay,

I hope Ganeshprasad ji won't be emotional & if he can prove otherwise, I would be more than happy to re-establish my belief that Rama never ate meat.

Actually, this was Saidevoji's research which made me think otherwise. He has provided a link at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3019&page=3 in the thread "Rama, Sita & Lakshman" in the forum Vegetarianism.

As it was a quote from Valmiki Ramayana which is much older than Ramcharitmanas written by Goswami Tulsidas, in my opinion, what it says must be accepted as true.

Please check it yourself. If my understanding is wrong, I would be more than happy.

OM

[Spiritualseeker]

You are unnecessary worried about this, SS ! Not all Hindus are vegetarian & not all sects within Hinduism follow vegetarianism. In fact, not long ago, it was almost customary sacrificing animals during Durga Puja & KAli Puja. This disappeared slowly & now it is banned in India. It is still practised in Nepal though, as it is not banned there. The meat after the sacrifice is eaten as PrasAdam. I think there is ample proof that RAma, Lakshman & Sita ate meat while living in the forest. As I told you earlier too, Hinduism don't bind you to any particular dogma. You have freedom to think, reason & decide the correct course of action. You remember, one man's meat is another man's poison ? IMO, that applies here too. Normally the Brahmins are vegetarian. A Tamil Brahmin will refuse eating if he suspects that someone who has touched meat has touched the food offered to him. However, the Bengali Brahman & the Maithili Brahmins won't eat without fish. I have seen meat & fish being offered at KAmakhya Temple in Assam.

If you have to become vegetarian, it should come from within & certainly should not be forced. When a Butcher can become enlightened as narrated in VAdh Gita, why not the Non-vegetarians ?

OM

Thank you devotee. I need to learn to let go. I keep on feeling as if most of the paths to enlightenment are impossible. I beat myself up over these issues. I just have tos ee the wider picture. Thank you very much

OM
-juan

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

After re-reading the text, I think, it may not be necessary that Rama & others ate meat in the forest, as the text is only an advice from Kabandh who was himself a meat-eater & there is no mention that Rama followed that advice.

However, it becomes difficult to accept that he never ate meat because of these reasons :

i) If Ram, indeed, was a strict vegetarian why Kabandh would risk antagonising him by giving such details on how to dress & cook the birds & fishes ?

ii) His this statement :

"I must to lonely wilds repair, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharata's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend." (Ramayana, as translated by Griffith)

Why will he use the term "abstain from flesh", if he never ate flesh ?

iii) Why did he go for killing the antelope (MArich) if he was a strict vegetarian ? Let's remember that Sita tells Rama to kill that antelope & bring its skin without knowing that it was a demon in the garb of an antelope. So, she requested him to kill an antelope. That means he must be going for hunting as other Kshatriya did at that time. Accepting that he killed the animals but refrained from eating their flesh ... I don't find it logical. But that is my personal opinion only.

I agree that these arguments are by extrapolation & thus cannot be accepted as error-free, but it does give some food for thought to think otherwise too. However, is the Godliness of Rama so much dependent on what he ate ? I don't think so. If meat eating was to decide godliness then what shall we say about Ma Durga/Ma Kamakhya etc. who have long been worshipped with animal sacrifices ?

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,



You are asking for the proof & yet threatening to quit Dharma ? Do you think I can take that risk ? For me, your continuance on the path of Dharma is more important than my being right.

So, better I keep mum. If you think I have no proof & what I said is wrong, let it be so.

OM

I am touched by your concern, but i have a unflinching faith in Lord Ram.
if i were to stray from Dharma on his account that would be my blessing.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,



However, it becomes difficult to accept that he never ate meat because of these reasons :

i) If Ram, indeed, was a strict vegetarian why Kabandh would risk antagonising him by giving such details on how to dress & cook the birds & fishes ?

This is no reason to assume Ram ate meat.





ii) His this statement :

"I must to lonely wilds repair, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharata's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend." (Ramayana, as translated by Griffith)
Why will he use the term "abstain from flesh", if he never ate flesh ?


i will come to this in my next reply.




iii) Why did he go for killing the antelope (MArich) if he was a strict vegetarian ?

He did not go to kill, he could have done that at that very moment.



Let's remember that Sita tells Rama to kill that antelope & bring its skin without knowing that it was a demon in the garb of an antelope. So, she requested him to kill an antelope.

wrong again, she says and i quote

"Oh, nobleman's son, that delightful deer is stealing my heart, oh, dextrous one, bring it round, it will be our plaything. [3-43-10]



That means he must be going for hunting as other Kshatriya did at that time. Accepting that he killed the animals but refrained from eating their flesh ... I don't find it logical. But that is my personal opinion only.

you will find it difficult to locate a verse that say he went huntting.



Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

I will have to check the Sanskrit version of Ramayana for what you say but Ramcharitmanas doesn't agree with what you say :

Aranya Kand :26:2 to 26:3

Sita param ruchir mrig dekha,
Anga anga sumanohar vesha ll

Sunahu deva Raghuveer Kripala,
Ehi Mrig kar ati sundar chhala ll

Satyasandha prabhu badhi kari ehi,
Anahu charma kahati vaidehi ll

Here in above verses, Sita clearly asks Rama to go & kill the deer & bring its skin for her.

May be Tulsidas made mistake here but as I see it, there are sufficient hints which indicate that there are reasons to believe that Rama might not have been a pure vegetarian.

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji

Sorry i did not mention that my quote was from Valmiki Ramayan

Jai Shree Krishna

[satay]

Pranam Devotee,

My apologies for the previous posts of mine. I have deleted them. I thought I came too hard on you. Your comment re Lord Ram caught me by surprise and it was very early in the morning for me, a time when I should have been doing japa. Instead I saw your post...and produced an emotional response.



Namaste Satay,

I hope Ganeshprasad ji won't be emotional & if he can prove otherwise, I would be more than happy to re-establish my belief that Rama never ate meat.

Actually, this was Saidevoji's research which made me think otherwise. He has provided a link at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3019&page=3 in the thread "Rama, Sita & Lakshman" in the forum Vegetarianism.

As it was a quote from Valmiki Ramayana which is much older than Ramcharitmanas written by Goswami Tulsidas, in my opinion, what it says must be accepted as true.

Please check it yourself. If my understanding is wrong, I would be more than happy.

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,



ii) His this statement :

"I must to lonely wilds repair, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharata's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend." (Ramayana, as translated by Griffith)

Why will he use the term "abstain from flesh", if he never ate flesh ?



I believe this is from Valmiki Ramayan 2.20.29 and 30
Here is the Sanskrit verse
chaturdasha hi varShaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |

ka.mdamuulaphalairjiivan hitvaa munivadaamiSham || raa 2.20.29 ||
Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,
subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal
fare(raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 20.29). The following references from the Valmiki Ramayana are provided by H.K. Susarla
Commenting on your quoted translation he says;
Find it very hard to believe someone would quit eating meat before living in a forest. This seems somewhat illogical, especially for an expert archer.

I don't trust that if it says that, that's a ridiculous idea, that He would stop eating meat to go into the forest. Why would He do that?

Let's bear in mind there's a lot of different Ramayana out there, so judging something like this cannot be done by quoting Shastra.

It's logically plausible that Rama did not eat meat in the palace and also not in the forest, out of compassion. It's also possible that He hunted when He lived in the palace and continued when He lived in the forest, out of dharma, since He needed to be skilled at warfare. It's also possible that He didn't hunt when He was in the palace, and started hunting when He was in the forest.

To say that he was hunting in the palace and stopped when he lived in the forest defies logic and explanation. H.K Susarla
　
There are contentious translations as well as interpolation in various scriptures, for vested interest. One thing is clear there is not a single verse that explicitly mentions that he had meat as a dish, but I can saw you many verses where by he had roots and vegetables only.

Sure Ksatriya Dharma dictates hunting for war fare skill, I have not come across that Ram did that, his father did for sport and suffered the consequence as well.

tiirtheShu pratidriiShTeShu raajaa medhyaan pashuun vane
yaavadarthamala.m lubdho hanyaad iti imamate - Bhagavata Purana 4.26.6

"If a king is too attracted to eating flesh, he may, according to the directions of the revealed scriptures on sacrificial performances, go to the forest and kill some animals that are recommended for killing. One is not allowed to kill animals unnecessarily or without restrictions. The Vedas regulate animal-killing to stop the extravagance of foolish men influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance."



I agree that these arguments are by extrapolation & thus cannot be accepted as error-free, but it does give some food for thought to think otherwise too. However, is the Godliness of Rama so much dependent on what he ate ? I don't think so.

If the argument is not from evidence but from inference then there is a lot of things to consider. That he is Maryada Purshotam unlike Krishna he lived the example for us humans to follow.
He is embodiment of Karuna (compassion) that would include all sentient being. He certainly would not be any less compassionate then his ancestors like Manu who forbade meat eating or King sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pigeon

Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To think that he could not measure up to his ancestor King Sigi is unbelievable.



If meat eating was to decide godliness then what shall we say about Ma Durga/Ma Kamakhya etc. who have long been worshipped with animal sacrifices ?

The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made by the Gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.
　
　
　
Where does It say Maa Durga is asking for animal sacrifice? Where does it say any where they actually partake in meat eating? Maa Kali in her furious form devours the demons to get rid of papp on the earth that is her compassion.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

I won't say that what you say is wrong & I am not keen on proving that Rama ate meat. However, I would like to mention one error in your post here.

After some research I found that in Valmiki Ramayana too, Sita shows no hesitation in asking Rama for killing the deer & that does Rama too. In fact, Sita has a desire to try to capture the deer alive first (as mentioned by you in your post) but if that fails then she suggests that it should be killed for its beautiful skin. On the other hand, as says Ramayana, Rama doesn't think of capturing it at all but thinks only of its beautiful skin & shows his desires to sit on it with Sita. Let's see these verses & the explanations :

jiivan na yadi te abhyeti grahaNam mR^iga sattamaH |
ajinam narashaarduula ruciram tu bhaviSyati || 3-43-19

===> "Else if that best deer does not come into you capture while alive, oh tigerly-man, at the least its gorgeous deerskin will be remnant of it. [3-43-19]

nihatasya asya sattvasya jaa.mbuunadamaya tvaci |
shaSpa bR^isyaam viniitaayaam icChaami aham upaasitum || 3-43-20

===> I wish to sit along with you on its golden deerskin, overlaying it on a seat of tender darbha grass-blades, in case the deer is felled. [3-43-20]

maa.msa hetoH api mR^igaan vihaaraartham ca dhanvinaH |
ghnanti lakSmaNa raajaano mR^igayaayaam mahaavane || 3-43-31

===> "Kings pursuing games of hunting in great forests, oh, Lakshmana, will be felling deer either for the sake of flesh, or just for the purpose of sporting archery. [3-43-31]

etasya mR^iga ratnasya paraardhye kaa.ncana tvaci |
upavekSyati vaidehii mayaa saha sumadhyamaa || 3-43-35

===> "This comely Vaidehi will be sitting on that invaluable golden skin of that gem of a deer along with me. [3-43-35]

na kaadalii na priyakii na praveNii na ca avikii |
bhavet etasya sadR^ishii spar.hshanena iti me matiH || 3-43-36

====> "I think the skin of Kadali deer, or of Priyaki deer, or of Praveni deer, or as a matter of fact the skins of best breed of deer or sheep will not be match to the deerskin of this deer, insofar as the soft-touch is concerned. [3-43-36]

OM

[TatTvamAsi]

Don't forget that humans are naturally omnivores

That is actually untrue. After some thorough research conducted on herbivores and carnivores, the ratio of the length of the alimentary canal to the large intestine of herbivores corresponds to that of humans. Carnivores have a distinctly different ratio which has been proven empirically.

Therefore, the theory that humans are naturally omnivorous is quite dubious to say the least.

Other than that, I agree with your overall assessment and to the OP (SS), meat eating, drinking alcohol, and indulgence in sex are hurdles to progressing spiritually. This is part of the reason why certain people were kept aloof in a society. A drunkard, a womanizer, or one who eats meat was generally not allowed to mingle with "normal" people in ancient India, as most people in ancient India had a high sense of discipline and were very advanced spiritually speaking. The idiots who blame the caste system do so because they themselves are drunkards, womanizers, and undisciplined. Anyway, I don't want to digress from your original question.

If you want to progress spiritually, it is unanimously agreed between the saints and sages that vegetarianism is the best lifestyle to follow. As others have said, you don't have to 'beat up yourself' over it if you can't give it up yet.

It will come when the time is right!

Namaskar.

[Spiritualseeker]

Tat I think it all depends on the studies because I have heard of stories mentioning that it is quite natural for us to be meat eaters

[Eastern Mind]

I wasn't going to jump in here, but ... http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Obviously by now, we all should know that anyone can find a study or two that backs their claim. The meat industry does 'studies'. The tobacco industry did 'studies'. The milk industry does 'studies'. (There is currently an ad on Canadian TV that says and I quote "Studies say that Canadians don't drink enough milk." )

What studies? Vegans PROVE by their very existence that the human body does not need milk.

So where does this end? IMHO, it is with the individual, and his or her free will. I remember alcoholics quoting some verse of the bible (My Aunt did it ... Timothy 23 - 6 if memory serves right ... only verse number I might actually know of) Whenever the French publish some study about the health benefits of wine, alcoholics go all agog about it. Why not? Anything that backs up intellectually the habit, and another excuse not to just use will power or a good doctor to dry out.

Quitting booze (never done that) or quitting smoking (have done that) are incredibly different than quitting eating meat. Both are physically ADDICTIVE. Eating meat isn't.

So I just don't get it. I think that Hindus who continually try to find obscure and vague ways of justifying their own weakness are actually just that .. weak. Besides, they are covering emotionally for the hidden guilt. (I once went to a Tamil barbecue ... they all slithered in behind trees to hide it from me.) Either that or they are reborn Christians with the habit incredibly ingrained. Hinduism, for the most part, is VEGETARIAN. The British and Europeans brought meat (along with a ton of other useless ideologies) and somehow managed to convince Joe Hindu its okay by their insiduous belittling, job recruitment etc.

The worst part is these brainwashed folks won't even try it. No will power, I guess. They think that after 2 or 3 days they will develop meat deficiency disease and die. When I started, it was a vow for one month.

So if you want to carry around dead flesh, and allow your body to be a burial ground for rotting flesh, go right ahead. Wash the external part of your body and give your innards garbage. Next time you see a rotting dead bird, rodent, or fish on the side of the road, go take a look. That's whats inside you.

Aum Namasivaya

[Spiritualseeker]

Maitri or Metta in Pali (Loving Kindness) and Karuna (Compassion) to all living beings including animals. Buddhism strictly forbids animal sacrifice for whatever reason. Vegetarianism is recommended but not compulsory.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

I won't say that what you say is wrong & I am not keen on proving ---. However, I would like to mention one error in your post here.

OM

Thank you, without wanting to sound pedantic, I see no error in my post, mother Sita seeing the golden deer, her desire was to play with it.

What transpired later must be understood with context as to what Laxman said, I am sure you must have read it in your research, he said and I quote

But Lakshmana became incredulous on seeing it and said to Rama, "I believe this deer to be that Maareecha, the demon." [3-43-5]

Everything else is spurious because we all know that Ram had to kill this demon, had to be lured away and later also Laxman had to go after Ram because there was no way Ravan could abduct mother Sita if either brother were around.

This incidence does not prove that they hunted or Ate meat.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Spritualaeeker


Vegetarianism is recommended but not compulsory.

Lord Krishna having instructed Arjun, at the end said now you do what pleases you.
there is no compulsion in Dharam, but my understanding is if i can not saw mercy how can then ask for it or expect it.
but then he is Karuna Sagar, what do i know.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Thank you, without wanting to sound pedantic, I see no error in my post, mother Sita seeing the golden deer, her desire was to play with it.

What transpired later must be understood with context as to what Laxman said, I am sure you must have read it in your research, he said and I quote


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

That is perfectly ok if you don't want to believe what is without any doubt ! It is not someone's interpretation but original sanskrit version. :)

Anyway, it is better I quit here.

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

That is perfectly ok if you don't want to believe what is without any doubt ! It is not someone's interpretation but original sanskrit version. :)

Anyway, it is better I quit here.

OM

Please don't get me wrong i do not doubt the verses you quoted but all i am saying is i did not err when i quoted Mother sita's desire, that was her paramount request.

all the rest followed from Laxman's revelation of who that deer was.

Jai Shree Krishna