Little question on meat eatting

[cmorel02]

I am very aware that in our dharma we do not eat meat because to obtain meat to eat on needs to kill an animal, thus harming it what would probably cause a lot of bad kharma. So what I was wondering was if one can eat a food that has touched meat?

[Eastern Mind]

I am very aware that in our dharma we do not eat meat because to obtain meat to eat on needs to kill an animal, thus harming it what would probably cause a lot of bad kharma. So what I was wondering was if one can eat a food that has touched meat?

Vannakkam cmorel: Many strict Hindus wouldn't. Nor would they accept food cooked in pots that once cooked meat. But this varies from person to person. A good example of this fine line is gelatin capsules prescribed by a doctor. Some people would just take them, and drop the worry while others would ask the druggist to use a vegetable gelatin, or tablets instead. So it depends on how strict you want to be. Another example might be eggs in a cake at a staff luncheon. Some people would just eat it with no concern. Others might ask. Still others would just avoid the cake with no questions. So there is variance.

Aum Namasivaya

[Water]

While we're on the subject of variance....

There's a Hindu family that I visit somewhat regularly. They were actually shocked I didn't eat chicken..... I asked if they ate other fowl and they said no.

I can't find other references as to why they would specifically eat chicken but nothing else?

[Eastern Mind]

While we're on the subject of variance....

There's a Hindu family that I visit somewhat regularly. They were actually shocked I didn't eat chicken..... I asked if they ate other fowl and they said no.

I can't find other references as to why they would specifically eat chicken but nothing else?

Vannakkam Water: If they are from India, its probably because that is the most commonly available fowl. Not once did I see a duck or a turkey in India. Ducks are commonly eaten in China, however.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Water,


While we're on the subject of variance....

There's a Hindu family that I visit somewhat regularly. They were actually shocked I didn't eat chicken..... I asked if they ate other fowl and they said no.

I can't find other references as to why they would specifically eat chicken but nothing else?

Just from my experience, most Hindus who are semi-practicing and non-vegetarian eat poultry, but they stay away from other animals. A lot of people in my family are not vegetarian, including my mother, but she mainly just eats chicken and occasionally turkey or duck. They don't eat the holy Mother Cow and I guess they just don't eat other animals either.

Jai Sri Ram

[Harinama]

Yeah... it would be preferable, if one was a strict vegetarian, to cook with one's own utensils that have not been contaminated by meat, fish or eggs... otherwise, there is a certain ickiness factor that one would have to deal with, and the fact that as a Vaishnava, I am only to eat prasadam...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Hindus who are semi-practicing and non-vegetarian eat poultry, but they stay away from other animals.

I see what you say yet it seems a bit convoluted , no ? It's like an alcoholic not drinking gin, but will drink beer. Where has he stopped drinking?

For some reason ~meat~ has come to mean 'cow'. Just yesterday I heard two people talking, one exclaimed they do not eat meat, but eats chicken and fish and considered herself a vegetarian.

IMHO one cannot semi- practice being vegetarian, just as one cannot be half-dead or half pregnant.

That said, I have seen many-a-Hindu eating meat. Yet I have not seem many a yogi or muni or one that wishes spiritual unfoldment (intently) eating the flesh or meat of another.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté

... thank you yajvan for your post and your opinions. Yet who are you ? Just one more HDF member giving their views on the matter. On what foundation do you stand?


Here is where I base my POV:

In the anusasana parva, section CXV ( or section 115) of the mahābhārata , yudhiṣṭhira asks bhīṣma-ji a few questions.

He says, you ( bhīṣma-ji ) have informed me many times that the abstention from injury is the highest religion. Yet in sraddhas, however, that are performed in honour of the Pitris, persons for their own good should make offerings of diverse kinds of meat.

How can meat be procured without slaying a living creature?
What are the faults one incurs by eating meat?
What are the demerits one incurs who eats meat by killing a living creature? Or of him who eats meat buying it from others?Bhīṣma then says, Listen to me O' scion of the Kuru race, what the merit is that attaches to the abstention from meat.

Those high souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength, and memory should abstain from acts of injury.
The merit by a person with steadfastness of vow adores the deities every month in horse sacrifices is equal to him that discards honey and meat.
The seven rishis, the Valakhilyasm and the rishis that drink the rays of the sun applaud the abstention from meat.
Bhīṣma continues and says, Narada muni has said that the man who wishes to increase his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures meets with calamity.
The man who has eaten meat then gives it up acquires merit by such an act that is so great that a study of all the vedas or a performance of all the sacrifices cannot bestow its like ( or its equal).
The period of life is shortened of persons who slaughter living creatures or cause them to be slaughtered ( i.e. demand for meat).
One should never eat meat of animals not dedicated in sacrifices and that are slain for no reason.praṇām

[PARAM]

Good, just one thing is missing
Sacrifice is a loose word made by Meat eaters and Drunkyard anti Hindus to the word Bali (बलि), but originally it do not mean killing anybody, it means Purnahuti.

[achintya]

I am very aware that in our dharma we do not eat meat because to obtain meat to eat on needs to kill an animal, thus harming it what would probably cause a lot of bad kharma. So what I was wondering was if one can eat a food that has touched meat?

I am a Hindu. In my community we eat meat, particularly on festivals. My Kshatriya neighbours do so too. We have been Hindus since the religion came into existence.

Why do you say that in Hindu dharma we don't eat meat?

It is only a few sects of Hindus which prohibit meat but unfortunately it is only these sects that you see in the Western countries and not the real Hindus.

[uttam]

yes i think Achintya is right. meat eating is not forbidden in hindu dharma nor veg is advised. In Bhagabad Gita also it is said that only that food should be taken which would provide nutrition energy encouragement etc . No mention of veg or non veg. if meat is forbidden then the people living in the tough climatic condition of North East India will never become Hindu. Here milk, and milk products ,wheat,fruit veg etc is not cheap and not easily available. how they will survive to maintain their religion. I do not understand the relation between meat eating and dharma.in dwapar jug when Sri Krishna was present the skhatria ( warrior) people used to take wine, meat and it was part of their skhatria dharma. I think individual should decide at his personal level whether to take meat fish or not. Religion is different thing.

[anisha_astrologer]

yes i think Achintya is right. meat eating is not forbidden in hindu dharma nor veg is advised. In Bhagabad Gita also it is said that only that food should be taken which would provide nutrition energy encouragement etc . No mention of veg or non veg. if meat is forbidden then the people living in the tough climatic condition of North East India will never become Hindu. Here milk, and milk products ,wheat,fruit veg etc is not cheap and not easily available. how they will survive to maintain their religion. I do not understand the relation between meat eating and dharma.in dwapar jug when Sri Krishna was present the skhatria ( warrior) people used to take wine, meat and it was part of their skhatria dharma. I think individual should decide at his personal level whether to take meat fish or not. Religion is different thing.
yes indeed meat is not forbidden in Hindu Dharma. brahmins of the mithila region, the place where sita ws supposedly born, love to gorge on dishes made from fish. there are some communities where it is compulsory to sacrifice goat on the last day of durga puja and the whole family is required to eat the cooked meat.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


In Bhagabad Gita also it is said that only that food should be taken which would provide nutrition energy encouragement etc . No mention of veg or non veg.

Could you tell me the verse? The reason I ask is because I haven't found anything like that. I would like to know, for discussion's sake.

I've found is "I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit. I become the moon and thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables." 15.13 Only vegetables are mentioned, so my assumption is that Sri Krishna is endorsing a vegetarian diet.

And in Gita Mahatmya Chapter 8, "In the South is an important town of the name Amardhkapur in which one brahmana of the name Bhavasharma lived, who had taken a prostitute as his wife. Bhavasharma enjoyed eating meat, drinking wine, stealing, going with other's wives; and hunting. One day, that sinful Bhavasharma was invited to a party, where he drank so much alcohol that it started to come out of his mouth." I'm reading this to mean that eating meat is sinful.

Thanks. :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: A bit off topic, but oh well, it's just an analogy.

I used to hate oatmeal. Mom's oatmeal craze would last 3 months or more. Scottish oatmeal ... Plain oatmeal, with a dash of salt, maybe some brown sugar, topped with fresh farm milk. I got so sick of it.

My oatmeal today is this: plain oatmeal, no salt, one chopped banana or apple, a small handful of trail mix, a couple tablespoons of raisins, some demera sugar, a pinch of cinnamon, a pinch of cardamon... These days I love oatmeal, and I don't wonder why, because I know. I didn't use a recipe. I used my brain, or whatever is left of it.

The analogy ... My becoming a vegetarian story ... I tried it for a month, I liked it because I felt healthier, conscience was free and much more. I didn't use scripture. I used my brain, or whatever was left of it.

Aum Namasivaya

[sm78]

I've found is "I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit. I become the moon and thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables."


aushadhi is not vegetarian food but means medicine (from herbs), probably refering to medicinal healing herbs as well the one's used in healing rituals. The reference is clearly to soma and its healing presence in all herbs. That what cures is aushadhi.


It is fine you find veganism most refreshing and detoxing, but don't refer to twisted Gita tales to find support for it. Rama, Krishna were kshatriyas going regularly for mrigaya or hunting, and eating meat. Ofcourse self styled moralists cannot accept it, and there has been lengthy debates on this where clearly written words from epics were not enough. Veganism is a late addendum to Hinduism. Like EM I understand why some people will prefer Veganism and will even try to drum up support and consider it superior - but that does not mean one has to find its support in vedas, gita or epics - because its simply not there.

[Tapasya]

Namaste,

Please see (for example):

http://www.mahabharataonline.com/translation/mahabharata_13b080.php

Pranam

[Jainarayan]

Namaste sm78.


aushadhi is not vegetarian food but means medicine (from herbs), probably refering to medicinal healing herbs as well the one's used in healing rituals. The reference is clearly to soma and its healing presence in all herbs. That what cures is aushadhi.

It is fine you find veganism most refreshing and detoxing, but don't refer to twisted Gita tales to find support for it. Rama, Krishna were kshatriyas going regularly for mrigaya or hunting, and eating meat.

What I meant is that I couldn't find anything one way or the other explicitly forbidding meat-eating and explicitly endorsing vegetarianism. So again it comes down to translations, transliterations and interpretations, and a person's own feelings. I knew Lord Rama must have been a hunter, living in the forest for 14 years.

Thanks. :)

[kallol]

I think we had enough discussions on this topic earlier also.

The strict vegetarianism mostly came from the influence of Jainism and Buddhism.

Even the saints are known to take non veg. There are many instances in the puranas, scriptures on this aspect.

Hinduism being aligned to nature. The omnivorous animals came last and had all features to survive on both varieties. We do not expect people in Artic to have vegetables.

However said, if one wants to move in the direction of spirituality, then it is better to live as vegetarian as this has calming effects on mind and body.

This does not mean that non veg people cannot progress in spiritual path. This depends on the status of one's mind.

Just like all cigarette smokers do not have cancer, but the warning is always put on the packet.

[smaranam]

Rama, Krishna were kshatriyas going regularly for mrigaya or hunting, and eating meat

Namaste SM78

Do you have quotes from the scripture ? The 5th veda perhaps ?

And the known intentional interpolations (by outsiders) in RamayaNa ? (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=61253&postcount=33)

Like the famous attack on this single word चेरतु (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=63909&postcount=75) in RamayaNa.

However, there is ample indication in the scriptures of what is exemplary for a spiritually inclined one.

Rama is satyavAdi and had taken a vow. KRshNa lived in the heart of each latA (kreeper), Kadamba and Tamala tree, had pet deer, parrots. Cows were His heart and soul, we went barefoot because they went barefoot. He respected each shrub, tree, and creature. How can you expect Him to go hunting ? To demonstrate Kshatriya dharma ? Would He not distribute the catch to others then ? In any case i would like to see the verses.

praNAm

[smaranam]

P.S. : On a side note : It is said that we must follow Shri RAma, the Maryada Purushottam and only listen to KRshNa's instructions for us, the Leela Purushottam. We must never try to immitate KRshNa's actions, as they are transcendentally beyond our comprehension and moral judgement. Each act of His is a Leela for a purpose. So is RAm's but the purpose of RAmAvatAr was mostly to set example on qualities of the individual.

Hare KRshNa

[devotee]

Namaste,

Should we eat meat as we are Hindu ? Should we do this ... should we do that ... etc. etc. !!

These questions don't bother a born Indian Hindu. He does whatever he likes and he has no compulsion of doing something to prove that he is a true Hindu ! Why does it bother the new comers, I wonder.

Let's be clear on one thing. There is no taboo in Hindu Dharma except one or two and there also exceptions are there. There is no Mullah or Church telling you what to do or what not to do. Yes, once you have a Guru, you must follow what your Guru says.

a) Eating meat or not doesn't decide whether you are a Hindu or not. It is your choice. However, Hindus don't eat beef. Cow is sacred.
b) Though there is no authority stopping you from eating meat ... Ahimsa and controlling your sense organs have been considered important for higher spiritual aspirations. Again, there is no reason to become unreasonable here. If you are stranded on the Tundras where you can't find anything but meat to eat during winter ... please go ahead and have it ... as it is compulsion created by the situation you have been where you have no choice. So, it is your destiny and you accept it graciously. Middle path is considered the best ... so don't go the extremes ... going to extremes will harm you. There should be a sense of reasonableness and sense of proportion in deciding whether to indulge in anything or avoid it.
c) The above applies to all actions and indulgence in sensual gratification including sex (this question has also been raised here time to time). Any attraction towards sense gratification is our own bondage ... the more we are free from it ... is better. However, leaving anything just by action but not mentally is not advisable. It is better to indulge in an so-called action and then works towards spiritual upliftment with our other actions/choices forgetting that action ... than to keep thinking of the subject of sense gratification. The latter is more harmful.

OM

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


These questions don't bother a born Indian Hindu. He does whatever he likes and he has no compulsion of doing something to prove that he is a true Hindu ! Why does it bother the new comers, I wonder.

It's a good question which underscores a few things. This all comes from a personal perspective.

I think it's less a matter of bothering than it is confusing. A born Hindu has the benefit of being surrounded by those experienced in the culture and religion. A born Hindu can take this for granted without being aware of it. And in his or her family and community s/he rarely encounters conflicting information (I would think). Newcomers are often alone in their new experience and subject to conflicting information.

Books and internet conversations, as in-depth and well-informed as they may be don't substitute for being raised with parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who are experienced in Hindu cultural and religious ways. The next best thing would be Hindu School, regularly scheduled classes taught by experienced elders and/or pujaris. But then, what sect or denomination, or customs?

We learn by observation. A tigress teaches her cubs to hunt effectively because they observe her; they observe the right ways and wrong ways to hunt. Unless we can observe what comes naturally to someone else, it can be confusing. And for most of us (though not all) in the west, unless we have the benefit of living, working and being friends with a good number of Hindus, it can be difficult.

[smaranam]

Namaste


Why does it bother the new comers, I wonder.

OM

Because IMHO the newcomers come to Hindu Dharma for spiritual pursuits, not to join the Hindu Culture or Hindu Cafe.


He does whatever he likes

Not really (although i do understand what you mean in this context).

A born Hindu is surrounded by ample Arya saMskArs and they are built-in, to like what is generally good in the first place.

We must not take our saMskAr standards so much for granted, as Hindu Dharma goes overseas to other countries and cultures. I thought that sentence was important to make although it is not exactly overlooked in this case.


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

praNAm

[sm78]

N
What I meant is that I couldn't find anything one way or the other explicitly forbidding meat-eating and explicitly endorsing vegetarianism.

Well in the back-drop of kurukshetra war, there were more important things to discuss than diet. ;)

[Jainarayan]

Well in the back-drop of kurukshetra war, there were more important things to discuss than diet. ;)

Hmm... yes, I think you are right! :D

[NayaSurya]

Yesterday my husbands very dear Hindu friend from work come to him and says..."Do you roast a turkey?"

He tell her "Yes we have a turkey but most of it goes to animals because many won't eat."

When he tell me this and I say..."oh Ron we fail an important test from Beloved perhaps?"

and then he laugh and say..."No L not at all! She wanted to wish our family happy thanksgiving and to say she was just roasting a turkey breast as she only has three in her family to cook for!

and I had to giggle at how wrong I was!

Because this beautiful Indian family is also my family too! Celebrating a day which is for all religions.

She didn't have to ask for day off or explain it...in my country we all share this one day together<3

What a wonderful day to Thank Beloved for all of our blessings.

[kallol]

Namaste,

Should we eat meat as we are Hindu ? Should we do this ... should we do that ... etc. etc. !!

These questions don't bother a born Indian Hindu. He does whatever he likes and he has no compulsion of doing something to prove that he is a true Hindu ! Why does it bother the new comers, I wonder.

Let's be clear on one thing. There is no taboo in Hindu Dharma except one or two and there also exceptions are there. There is no Mullah or Church telling you what to do or what not to do. Yes, once you have a Guru, you must follow what your Guru says.

a) Eating meat or not doesn't decide whether you are a Hindu or not. It is your choice. However, Hindus don't eat beef. Cow is sacred.
b) Though there is no authority stopping you from eating meat ... Ahimsa and controlling your sense organs have been considered important for higher spiritual aspirations. Again, there is no reason to become unreasonable here. If you are stranded on the Tundras where you can't find anything but meat to eat during winter ... please go ahead and have it ... as it is compulsion created by the situation you have been where you have no choice. So, it is your destiny and you accept it graciously. Middle path is considered the best ... so don't go the extremes ... going to extremes will harm you. There should be a sense of reasonableness and sense of proportion in deciding whether to indulge in anything or avoid it.
c) The above applies to all actions and indulgence in sensual gratification including sex (this question has also been raised here time to time). Any attraction towards sense gratification is our own bondage ... the more we are free from it ... is better. However, leaving anything just by action but not mentally is not advisable. It is better to indulge in an so-called action and then works towards spiritual upliftment with our other actions/choices forgetting that action ... than to keep thinking of the subject of sense gratification. The latter is more harmful.

OM

Thanks Devoteeji. This is the most prevalent position known.

This is true for anyone inclined towards Hinduism. It is upto individual, what they feel comfortable.

However as Devoteeji mentioned it is appropriate that one do not develop habit or obessesion for anything - it will create attachment and will lead to wrong state of mind.

Again if one wishes to follow the path of spiritualism, it is always good to be veg.

[PARAM]

A true Hindu cannot eat meat because all animals are mounts of different deities. In Ramayan we find that even insects were involved in building the setu. Most of the Hindus now eat meat but everyone avoid Beef because Cow is most sacred, monkey, peacock and elephant etc also comes in sacred rites of protection.

[Believer]

Namaste,



I think it's less a matter of bothering than it is confusing. A born Hindu has the benefit of being surrounded by those experienced in the culture and religion. A born Hindu can take this for granted without being aware of it. And in his or her family and community s/he rarely encounters conflicting information (I would think). Newcomers are often alone in their new experience and subject to conflicting information.
Thanks for bringing out these points.
Newcomers need some structure, some sense of discipline and one set of guidelines. When us Hindus speak with so many different voices, it must be very confusing and frustrating for a newcomer to decide what to believe and what set of rules to follow for your sadhana. We do a great disservice to you, and for that I am sorry. I wish we had one set of rules, but as you might have seen from your short stay in the forum, we all have different positions, and we all insist on being right. If we examine closely however, one could do almost anything and still be a Hindu, but a serious practitioner with the singular objective of spiritual upliftment, does have to adhere to some guidelines. It is not a requirement that everyone must shoot for a higher consciousness. But if one desires for it, then the path is there to follow. Then again some may follow it all the way, and others might pick and choose based on their disposition/understanding/desires. So, it is a mixed bag with people making the selection as to how much, if at all, they want to practice. Some may even challenge the guidelines because 'they think' the guidelines are wrong, or 'their guru' says so. I apologize for all the inconsistencies and the confusion it causes for newcomers. But don't let that discourage you. I am sure intuitively you can see what is real and what is fluff. We need to do a better job of introducing newbies to Hinduism, but that is a tall order, not to be filled any time soon.

Pranam.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


I apologize for all the inconsistencies and the confusion it causes for newcomers. But don't let that discourage you. I am sure intuitively you can see what is real and what is fluff. We need to do a better job of introducing newbies to Hinduism, but that is a tall order, not to be filled any time soon.

Pranam.

I don't think apologies are required, as no offense or deliberate confusion is intended, I'm sure. The key is to see and learn what is real and what is fluff, to use your (appropriate) word, though it's true there are basic guidelines that must be followed, for respect and devotion if nothing else.

It behooves the new devotee to keep inquiring and digging too, and not get discouraged and give up. It's not one-sided with learned Hindus and elders providing all the direction. If you want something badly enough, you'll go after it. You all know I'm a pitbull when it comes to digging up information, though not everyone has my degree of tenacity (which is not always a good thing :p).

When all I had was a rudraksha mala and a mala of unknown wood, some people "clutched their pearls" at the thought of doing japa to Sri Krishna with those; other people asked what if you only have pebbles, or don't even have fingers?

It's the minutiae (and translations that sometimes have a decidedly western flavor) that can cause confusion. I myself am coming to realize it's not the rituals and the "do this" and "don't do that" which is most important. Sometimes I think that Lord Krishna must get a good chuckle out of some of the things we stress over. He was a practical joker and had a good sense of humor, after all.

I think two important verses from the Bhagavad Gita on this subject are: "Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." 9.30* and "Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend." 18.65


* not to say that you can go commit murder and think it's OK; I think the verse is saying that if you are steadfast in your devotion, and you commit a horrible act or offense, you cannot have done it deliberately.

[devotee]

Nice post, TBTL !

OM

[Jainarayan]

Thanks. :)

[Brahmanyan]

Hindus (including Brahmins) were taking meat and liquor in Vedic age. Our Dharma Sastras and Grihya Sutras do not prohibit eating meat, except some limitations. We are a mixture of Ethical, Moral, Scientific and Social concepts. Which changes according to our environmental needs. Our experience is our Guide and Guru.The noted neuroscientist Dr.V.S.Ramachandran says ".... that the human is primarily an organ of cultural sophistication and diversity. It is this trait above all that makes us absolutely unique in the animal kingdom". Thus we can justify any of our actions including the nature of that we consume. We abhor killing of any living thing on one hand and at the same time spend millions of dollars on the manufacture of Arms and ammunition for the annihilation of our own race. Where is the ethics in this?"

Just as any other aspect of Cultural refinement our food habits also have changed considerably in the course of time from coarse grain , and alcoholic drinks, (in Vedic times) to much more delicate and varied "soft" food which includes vegetarian food, perhaps due to influence of Saivism and Jainism. There is nothing moral or immoral in the kind of food that we take. Life is precious, nature takes care of our existance and survival depending of availability of food.

As for me, born in a strict vegetarian family, It is my personal choice to be a vegetarian. Nothing more than that. I do not attach any ethical or moral value for this.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[Believer]

Namaste,


Hindus (including Brahmins) were taking meat and liquor in Vedic age.
An interesting declaration indeed!
Brahmins in the Vedic age were as decadent as the rest of the population? But were still respected?

The noted neuroscientist.........
Scientists have started rewriting our shastras?

Thus we can justify any of our actions....
I could get a free pass for a lot of dispicable things I have done in my life? :)

I am totally floored, don't know where to start. Hopefully these are all personal opinions and not grounded in reality.

Pranam.

[PARAM]

Hindus (including Brahmins) were taking meat and liquor in Vedic age. Our Dharma Sastras and Grihya Sutras do not prohibit eating meat, except some limitations. We are a mixture of Ethical, Moral, Scientific and Social concepts. Which changes according to our environmental needs. Our experience is our Guide and Guru.The noted neuroscientist Dr.V.S.Ramachandran says ".... that the human is primarily an organ of cultural sophistication and diversity. It is this trait above all that makes us absolutely unique in the animal kingdom". Thus we can justify any of our actions including the nature of that we consume. We abhor killing of any living thing on one hand and at the same time spend millions of dollars on the manufacture of Arms and ammunition for the annihilation of our own race. Where is the ethics in this?"

Just as any other aspect of Cultural refinement our food habits also have changed considerably in the course of time from coarse grain , and alcoholic drinks, (in Vedic times) to much more delicate and varied "soft" food which includes vegetarian food, perhaps due to influence of Saivism and Jainism. There is nothing moral or immoral in the kind of food that we take. Life is precious, nature takes care of our existance and survival depending of availability of food.

As for me, born in a strict vegetarian family, It is my personal choice to be a vegetarian. Nothing more than that. I do not attach any ethical or moral value for this.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.


You are just another type of man who have no Knowledge of Vedas but boast too much just like other anti-Hindus. Your personal choice is to believe and spread unvedic things in the name of Vedas.

[sm78]

You are just another type of man who have no Knowledge of Vedas but boast too much just like other anti-Hindus. Your personal choice is to believe and spread unvedic things in the name of Vedas.

To Satay: Couldn't this post be also be deleted like the other's as it is pretty empty on content and full of abuse?

[PARAM]

To Satay: Couldn't this post be also be deleted like the other's as it is pretty empty on content and full of abuse?

Where is abuse? Strict reply to anti-Hindu post is an abuse only for anti-Hindus. Satay should delete anti-Hindu post.

Anything that is related to Dharmic scripture should be described from the scriptures only, but any translation done by unlearned is not acceptable at any name.

I will accept my post as abuse only if learned souls will say.

[charitra]

some months ago , I think sahasranama qouted some scriptures about meat eating, in favor of it. Please try to find it.


Where is abuse? Strict reply to anti-Hindu post is an abuse only for anti-Hindus. Satay should delete anti-Hindu post.

Anything that is related to Dharmic scripture should be described from the scriptures only, but any translation done by unlearned is not acceptable at any name.

I will accept my post as abuse only if learned souls will say.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste charitra.

I'm just jumping in here.


some months ago , I think sahasranama qouted some scriptures about meat eating, in favor of it. Please try to find it.

It seems to go either way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#Hinduism

On one hand:


Some source texts discuss meat eating as a fact without referring to the ethical side of the issue. The Dharmaśāstra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra) law books written around the 5th or 4th century BCE contain regulations for meat eating and lists of edible animals.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-11) Medical treatises of the Ayurveda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda) discuss and recommend meat from a purely health-related viewpoint without even mentioning the aspect of ahimsa.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-12) Examples are the Sushruta Samhita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita) written in the 3rd or 4th century CE, which recommends beef for certain patients and for pregnant women,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-13) and the Charaka Samhita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaka_Samhita) which describes meat as superior to all other kinds of food for convalescents.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-14)


But on the other hand:

Several highly authoritative scriptures bar violence against domestic animals except in the case of ritual sacrifice. This view is clearly expressed in the Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata),[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-15) the Bhagavata Purana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana) (11.5.13–14), and the Chandogya Upanishad (8.15.1). It is also reflected in the Manusmṛti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusm%E1%B9%9Bti) (5.27–44), a particularly renowned traditional Hindu lawbook (Dharmaśāstra). These texts strongly condemn the slaughter of animals and meat eating. The Mahabharata permits hunting by warriors (Kshatriyas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya)),[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-16)

[Jainarayan]

...any translation done by unlearned is not acceptable at any name.

Who are the learned and unlearned? And who is to judge who is learned or unlearned?

[PARAM]

some months ago , I think sahasranama qouted some scriptures about meat eating, in favor of it. Please try to find it.

Did you check KD Gupta's replies and my reply in that thread? We already answered him, and he changed his stance.


Who are the learned and unlearned? And who is to judge who is learned or unlearned?
Dharma scriptures are the Judges, those who go with them are learned and those who go against them are unlearned. Now I do not need to add that D.K.Jha and Romila Thapar are unlearned, they take claims of too much, support AIT and Beef in Hindu texts, but no proof they have, on the other hand Saideo and BM are learned with rational thoughts.

[OjasM]

I am a Hindu. In my community we eat meat, particularly on festivals. My Kshatriya neighbours do so too. We have been Hindus since the religion came into existence.

Why do you say that in Hindu dharma we don't eat meat?

It is only a few sects of Hindus which prohibit meat but unfortunately it is only these sects that you see in the Western countries and not the real Hindus.

Yes even I was thinking the same. Most of the Hindus in India do eat meat i.e. chicken mutton fish also eggs. It was prohibited only to brahmanas and those who want to have spiritual development. Now a days many brahmanas have also lost shame and eat meat and also support it. Sad to say a very less proportion of people are meaningfully vegetarian

[PARAM]

Yes even I was thinking the same. Most of the Hindus in India do eat meat i.e. chicken mutton fish also eggs. It was prohibited only to brahmanas and those who want to have spiritual development. Now a days many brahmanas have also lost shame and eat meat and also support it. Sad to say a very less proportion of people are meaningfully vegetarian


The truth is it is only a few sects of Tantrikism which was originally formed from Buddhism supports eating meat, supporters of Non-vegetarians are only polluting Hinduism for the sake of their illusion, there are sects of anti-Hindus which blames Dharma Granthas for supporting eating the tamsic which are strictly forbidden.

People are making claims in their forms and put themselves as proof, this is a tamsik way.

If you want to eat meat, your own choice, we can't do anything to make you understand, but you should not blame Dharma Granthas in any form for supporting any tamsic deeds including meat eating, your personal choice is not what a Satvic eating should be.

[Seeker123]

The truth is it is only a few sects of Tantrikism which was originally formed from Buddhism supports eating meat, supporters of Non-vegetarians are only polluting Hinduism for the sake of their illusion, there are sects of anti-Hindus which blames Dharma Granthas for supporting eating the tamsic which are strictly forbidden.

Recently I was reading the Ramayana by Kamala Subramaniam (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan publication). In the Vali episode Vali asks Rama why he killed him since the "5 toed animals?" are not eaten by Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. There was another episode in which sage Agastya was invited for a feast Vaataapi-Ilvala episode where he consumed meat. Do you think the translation is incorrect?

[PARAM]

Recently I was reading the Ramayana by Kamala Subramaniam (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan publication). In the Vali episode Vali asks Rama why he killed him since the "5 toed animals?" are not eaten by Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. There was another episode in which sage Agastya was invited for a feast Vaataapi-Ilvala episode where he consumed meat. Do you think the translation is incorrect?


These translations are incorrect, all scriptures already points that flesh and flesh products are tamsik and cannot be consumed. Anti-Hindus have their own way to make incorrect information.

True translation of Bali episode if you are mentioning [4-17-40] -
Why I am killed when sensible people will not use my skin and bones, nor they will eat meats from my body, such as I am a five-nailed animal.

This clearly says no kind of meat was eaten by anyone who is sensible.



Agastya's fest is also wrong translated because it is clearly mentioned in ancient Granthas that he ate what his devotees offered him, and he was unaware what was offered to him. Read the entire story, when Agatsya come to know the truth, he immediately destroyed those demons with his divine power for offering him meat.

You will not find even a single Hindu Temple where eating tamsik food is permitted, non-veg are never offered as prasadam. Only the tantrik section eats meat but not a real Hindu temple allows this anywhere. Real translations of Ramayana are other Itihas and Dharma Granthas are available in libraries of different Hindu temples.

[Seeker123]

For Vali's comments to Rama the reference is 4-17-39 and 4-17-40 below:

पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव |
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः || १-१७-३९
39. raaghava = oh, Raghava; brahma kSatreNa = by Brahmans, Kshatriya-s; shalyakaH = a wild-rodent with defensive quills; shvaavidhaH = a kind of boar that kills dogs, wolves etc; godhaa = a lizard with unimaginable grip; shashaH = hare; pancamaH kuurmaH ca = fifthly, tortoise, also; panca = five [kinds of]; panca nakhaa = five nailed animals; bhakSyaa = are edible.
"Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. [4-17-39]

and then 4-17-40:

चर्म च अस्थि च मे राजन् न स्पृशन्ति मनीषिणः |
अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि सो अहम् पंच नखो हतः || १-१७-४०
40. raajan = oh, king; maniiSiNaH = sensible people; me carma ca asthi ca = my, skin, also, bones, also; na spR^ishanti = will not, touch; maamsaani ca = meats, also a bhakSyaaNi = not, to be eaten; panca nakhaH = five, nailed one; saH aham hataH = such as I am, I am killed.
"Sensible people will not touch my skin and bones, oh, king, nor meats from my body are to be eaten, such as I am, a five-nailed animal, I am killed. [4-17-40]
'There appears to be no reason as to why a five-nailed animal like me is to be killed, when there is no reason for political, religious, hunting, or food purposes. Then this act of yours shall have an ultimate purpose isn't it....'

[Seeker123]

On the question of Agastya and Illvala and Vatapi episode see below the verses before Agastya enters the picture:


iha ekadaa kila kruuro vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH |
bhraatarau sahitau aastaam braahmaNaghnau mahaa asurau || 4-11-55

55. ekadaa iha braahmaNa ghnau= once, here, Brahmans, killers of; kruuraH vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH= cruel ones, Vaataapi, even, also, Ilvala; bhraatarau mahaa asurau sahitau aastaam kila= brothers, dreadful demons, together, they were here, they say.
"Once upon a time verily cruel demon brothers Vaataapi and Ilvala were here together, and they the dreadful demons, they say, used to be Bhraman-killers. [4-11-55]


dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam ilvalaH sa.mskR^itam vadan |
aama.ntrayati vipraan sa shraaddham uddishya nirghR^iNaH || 4-11-56

56. dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam= disguising, Bhraman's, semblance; ilvalaH= Ilvala; sam skR^itam vadan= sophisticatedly, speaking; aamantrayati vipraan= invite, Brahman; sa shraaddham uddishya= obsequial ceremony, purpose of; nir ghR^iNaH= pitiless ones.
"Disguising in Bhraman's semblance and speaking sophisticatedly that Ilvala used to invite Brahmans for the purpose of obsequial ceremonies, where Brahman are fed after usual ceremony to appeases their manes. [4-11-56]


bhraataram sa.mskR^itam kR^itvaa tataH tam meSa ruupiNam |
taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa || 4-11-57

57. tataH= then; meSa ruupiNam= in ram's, form; tam bhraataram= that, brother [Vaataapi,] is; sam skR^itam kR^itvaa= perfecting, made to [cooked deliciously]; tataH shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa= then, according to obsequial rites, and deeds; taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa= them, Brahman, he was feeding.
Then Ilvala used to make his brother Vaataapi into a ram, perfect that ram's meat into deliciously cooked food, and used to feed Brahmans according to obsequial rites and deeds. [4-11-57]


tato bhuktavataam teSaam vipraaNaam ilvalo abraviit |
vaataape niSkramasva iti svareNa mahataa vadan || 4-11-58

58. tataH teSaam vipraaNaam bhuktavataam= then, those, Brahmans, when surfeited; ilvalaH mahataa svareNa vadan= Ilvala, with loud voice, shouting; vaataape niS kramasva iti abraviit= oh, Vaataapi, you exit, thus, he said [use to say]
"When those Brahmans are surfeited with that ram's meat, then Ilvala used to shout loudly, "oh, Vaataapi, you may come out." [4-11-58]


tato bhraatur vacaH shrutvaa vaataapiH meSavat nadan |
bhittvaa bhitvaa shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam viniSpatat || 4-11-59

59. tataH vaataapiH bhraatuH vacaH shrutvaa= then, Vaataapi, brother's, words, on listening; nadan meSa vat= bleating, like, a ram; bhittvaa bhitvaa= tearing, tearing; shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam= bodies, of Brahman; vi niS patat= used to lunge out.
"Then on listening his brother's words Vaataapi used to lunge out bleating like a ram, tearing and rending the bodies of those Brahmans. [4-11-59]


braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi taiH evam kaama ruupibhiH |
vinaashitaani sa.mhatya nityashaH pishita ashanaiH || 4-11-60

60. taiH [taabhyaam]= by those two brothers; pishita ashanaiH= raw meat, eaters kaama ruupibhiH= them, thus, guise-changers; [or, pishita aashayaa= for flesh, greedy ones]; braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi= Brahman, thousands; evam vi naashitaani samhatya nityashaH= this way, are ruined, together, always.
"This way they the guise changing demons always ruined thousands of Brahmans together, greedy for raw-flesh as they are. [4-11-60]

[OjasM]

Namaste.



Could you tell me the verse? The reason I ask is because I haven't found anything like that. I would like to know, for discussion's sake.

I've found is "I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit. I become the moon and thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables." 15.13 Only vegetables are mentioned, so my assumption is that Sri Krishna is endorsing a vegetarian diet.

And in Gita Mahatmya Chapter 8, "In the South is an important town of the name Amardhkapur in which one brahmana of the name Bhavasharma lived, who had taken a prostitute as his wife. Bhavasharma enjoyed eating meat, drinking wine, stealing, going with other's wives; and hunting. One day, that sinful Bhavasharma was invited to a party, where he drank so much alcohol that it started to come out of his mouth." I'm reading this to mean that eating meat is sinful.

Thanks. :)

Here it is very important to note that he was a brahmana. They(Brahmanas) were completely prohibited from these acts not others.

[OjasM]

Well in the back-drop of kurukshetra war, there were more important things to discuss than diet. ;)

No, diet has been briefly discussed in last chapters of Bhagwad Geeta

[OjasM]

You are just another type of man who have no Knowledge of Vedas but boast too much just like other anti-Hindus. Your personal choice is to believe and spread unvedic things in the name of Vedas.

If you dont believe in non vegeterianism its okay but no one can impose own decision on others.I have no knowledge of vedas but it is clearly written in manu smriti that brahmins can have meat under some condtns.

[PARAM]

[quote=Seeker123;79490]

Nothing has been said those who eat the non-veg were pure because non-veg are tamsik. Your own posts answers the previous post, if someone is offered poisonous food and die eating it, that would not be suicide but this is victimising. Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras all are not made by birth but by Karma.

In the Ramayana, Bali was accusing Ram for various sins because Ram killed him the wrong way, this clears that Bali clarifies eating meat is sin, but this does not meant Ram or any other really ate any meat, Bali was also cremated as per Vedic rituals. During the 14 years of exile, Sita, Ram and Lakshman never ate any Tamas-gun. During Lanka war only animals were there to help Ram and no other was there, so where did they eat only satvik.

[PARAM]

If you dont believe in non vegeterianism its okay but no one can impose own decision on others.I have no knowledge of vedas but it is clearly written in manu smriti that brahmins can have meat under some condtns.

If you believe in non-vegetarianism, its okay with you. You accepted you have no knowledge of Vedas so that is good, but where Manu Samriti allows eating any Tamsik?


Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayee
Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khadakashcheti ghaatakaah

Slaying the animals, permitting it, slaughterers of animals, meat sellers, buyers, those who cook, serve, eat meat; are all murderers.
(Manusmrithi 5.51)



One more thing, all ancient Dharma Granthas, including Manu-Samriti, clearly mentions that All Varnas- Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishyas, Shudras are based on Karma. Laws of Vedas are equal for everyone, and no one is exempted. Those meat eaters are Asuras / Demons and not Brahmins or even Shudra.


Any translation done by unlearned like Ambedakar is not acceptable.

[Seeker123]

I am not saying Rama ate meat. Please read the translations provided in the last 2 posts:

1. 4-17-39: Clearly states some animals are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriyas. Which part of that translation is inaccurate? Is it bhakSyaa? bhakSyaa is translated as edible here
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=bhakSya&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

2. In the Illvala-Vatapi episode it is well known that the 2 demons killed a lot of Brahmanas after they consumed ram's meat. If the brahmans were vegetarians they would have said No and the story would have ended is it not? Which part of that translation is inaccurate?

I am willing to listen if you can provide better translation for those verses.

[PARAM]

I am not saying Rama ate meat. Please read the translations provided in the last 2 posts:

1. 4-17-39: Clearly states some animals are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriyas. Which part of that translation is inaccurate? Is it bhakSyaa? bhakSyaa is translated as edible here
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=bhakSya&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

2. In the Illvala-Vatapi episode it is well known that the 2 demons killed a lot of Brahmanas after they consumed ram's meat. If the brahmans were vegetarians they would have said No and the story would have ended is it not? Which part of that translation is inaccurate?

I am willing to listen if you can provide better translation for those verses.

1. Online translators are not a right way to translate words, there is no proper translate for even English.

You can choose any Important Dharma Grantham and you will find only one thigh. Satvic is the permitted food, Rajas is only for part time, and tamas that include meat is strictly avoided.
All Temples will also offer only Satvic food as Prasadam, no tamsic products are allowed.



2. How many times told already Brahmins or Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras, all are based on Karma. All Dharma Grantham say this. What we have today is politically corrected caste for votes and there nothing is depends on Karma, this cannot be accepted as they are telling others.

The true meaning of consuming animals is that animal product, like using animals for cultivation and for milk there is nothing for meat or bones. Bali episode is itself the proof.

Illvala-Vatapi episode is also same that eating something tamas is not allowed. Those which are translated as Demon are also in fact human and not what English translators are claiming but they are Asuras because of their Karma. Anyone who will go tamas will become tamas as Karma. If somebody eats meat unknowingly, that is not a higher crime, those Brahmin who eat unknowingly only lose their divinity, but cannot be charged for eating meat knowingly.

Take it - Hiranyakashyap is a Demon, but his descendent Mahabali is a Brahmin, why? This is all because Mahabali's Karma were similar to that of Brahmin, while Hiranyakashyap's Karma was opposite of it.

[Seeker123]

1. Online translators are not a right way to translate words,....

Then what is the correct translation for those Ramayana verses in my earlier posts?

I am not arguing for meat eating just trying to understand those verses.

[Jainarayan]

What foods could be referred to here?:

"Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one’s existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart." B.G. 17.8

The only foods I can think of that meet these criteria are meats. Humans were hunter-gatherers for all but the last 10,000 years of our existence. Sri Krishna was killed by a fisherman-hunter, Jara, whom he forgave. Apparently hunting was not unknown.

I do not think B.G. 9.26 is endorsing vegetarianism, however, as even Srila Prabhupada comments. I believe Sri Krishna is saying that whatever small and meager offering you give, with love and devotion to Him, be it a leaf or a flower, He will accept. I say this because virtually all of chapter 9 is about devotion to Him, not food. That comes in chapter 17, and even then, as I mentioned above, I think is ambiguous.

I'm not endorsing or condemning hunting and/or meat-eating. I'm just playing "devil's advocate", as there seem to be conflicts in scriptures between eating meat and eschewing meat-eating. Because of what I think are ambiguities, my feeling is "swim at your own karmic risk".

[PARAM]

Then what is the correct translation for those Ramayana verses in my earlier posts?

I am not arguing for meat eating just trying to understand those verses.

You have to learn Sanskrit yourself, or ask Yajvan, he is the most learned in HDF, but may fools ofthen make misuse and misguide others who are asking by mixing up his words.

[PARAM]

What foods could be referred to here?:

"Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one’s existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart." B.G. 17.8

The only foods I can think of that meet these criteria are meats. Humans were hunter-gatherers for all but the last 10,000 years of our existence. Sri Krishna was killed by a fisherman-hunter, Jara, whom he forgave. Apparently hunting was not unknown.

I do not think B.G. 9.26 is endorsing vegetarianism, however, as even Srila Prabhupada comments. I believe Sri Krishna is saying that whatever small and meager offering you give, with love and devotion to Him, be it a leaf or a flower, He will accept. I say this because virtually all of chapter 9 is about devotion to Him, not food. That comes in chapter 17, and even then, as I mentioned above, I think is ambiguous.

I'm not endorsing or condemning hunting and/or meat-eating. I'm just playing "devil's advocate", as there seem to be conflicts in scriptures between eating meat and eschewing meat-eating. Because of what I think are ambiguities, my feeling is "swim at your own karmic risk".

Hunting and eating is not permitted, NO SENSIBLE PERSON DO THIS. Even Valmiki have to quit hunting and eating meat to become a Rishi. Sri Krishna never allowed any such things that are Tamsik. Bhagwat Gita is not what just somebody thinks but it is Bhagwad Gita reveals the glory and importance of karma
Satvik Karma, Rajas Karma, Tamsik Karma.

Every part of life is included in it, also food Lord Krishna himself never eat any Tamsik, nor dose his followers and no devotee of Krishna, who was aware of the teachings of Bhagwad Gita eat meat or even egg. Just like Ram Temple, even Krishna Temples will also not allow tamsik products. Just because you or others "don't think", this does not means ॐ did not prohibits it.
Dharma Granthas of Hinduism strongly preaches vegetarianism, it goes against the beliefs of Islam and Christianity anti-Hindus just mock at it and this makes many Hindus to skip it and even target other Hindus because they are afraid that others will mock at their vegetarianism, and this makes them to go ahead with their own quotes in support of tamas including eating non-vegetarianism

It is not only Srila Prabhupada, but every Krishna Devotee, every Hindu Guru who supports vegetarianism, that is because they understand what the Dharma Granthas actually teaches them.. Bhagwad Gita is the words of ॐ himself in the form of Krishna, never try to make him supporting Tamas things which he prohibits.


Nobody killed Krishna, it was Bali who become fisherman-hunter because of his deeds, but took birth in human form. Ram killed Bali by hiding while Bali was innocent against Ram, so as the law of Karma Krishna gets the same treatment. This show that no one would be saved and all have to bear the fruit of Karma. This is already mentioned both in Ramayana and Mahabharata

[Jainarayan]

Self-deleted. Not worth it.