Scriptural references supporting Vegetarianism?

[mradam83]

Namaste.

Now I've accepted my calling as a Hindu, I'm looking into improving myself and strengthening my growing acceptance of Sanatana Dharma. One area I'm a bit hazy on is Vegetarianism.

I've instinctively stopped consuming beef, and I'm doing much soul searching so I can get to the stage of being fully veg.

One thing I would like to know is if there's any scriptural basis for not eating meat?

I can guess that it's seen as wrong because it involves an animal dying. However, has this ever been expressly forbidden?

I'm also wondering the same for cows - is it an Indian cultural practise that has been adopted as part of Hinduism or is it the other way around as a part of Hinduism that became part of culture?

Thanks all.

[Shanti29]

Hopefully you find this helpful, you should take no longer to read it than I took to Google it.
http://hinduism.about.com/cs/vegetarianism/a/aa261003a.htm

[mradam83]

Hopefully you find this helpful, you should take no longer to read it than I took to Google it.
http://hinduism.about.com/cs/vegetarianism/a/aa261003a.htm

Namaste.

Many thanks, that article was very interesting - I especially line the passage it included from the Mahabharata that I think boils down to the saying "do on to others as you would do on to yourself."

I may try and meditate on this - I feel now on reflection like it is my duty to at least consider these animals who are dying for my sustenance.

Again thank you, very good advice.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: You may not have heard of the Tirukkural, but it is an ancient (2000 years old) Tamil ethical scripture still sworn on in courts of law today in South India. It has 10 verses on each of many subjects. This http://www.vardh.com/thirukkural/26/ is the section on Abstaining from eating meat.

Aum Namasivaya

[mradam83]

Vannakkam: You may not have heard of the Tirukkural, but it is an ancient (2000 years old) Tamil ethical scripture still sworn on in courts of law today in South India. It has 10 verses on each of many subjects. This http://www.vardh.com/thirukkural/26/ is the section on Abstaining from eating meat.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste.

I've never thought of it as a sacred duty before - lifestyle and a kind thing definitely but never as a duty or an act of Karma.

I think I could achieve it if I go Vegetarian in stages. I've give up Beef already and soon I'll extend that to Red Meat. Then after that, I'll give up poultry and then fish finally.

Some may see this as a kop out, but I think I'll otherwise struggle and possibly never quite get there.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Most people transition to vegetarianism over time. Very few people I know of go cold turkey, pardon the pun. Beef, then other meats, then fowl, then fish, then eggs ... over a couple of years. Of course its like quitting smoking ... you have to want to. :) But in my own experience giving up meat is easier because you don't have to deal the physical addiction factor called nicking out. You don't start shaking, go all grumpy with everyone around you, and panic attacking from giving up meat.

Aum Namasivaya

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

You may wish to watch the film "Earthlings." It's about how animals are (ab)used by humans for meat, clothing, testing, pets, etc. and the suffering thereby caused to them. It shows more than tells.

It's a film very few can watch without weeping but it's, in my opinion, very important to see what actually goes on in the meat industry. It's very easy to consume meat when it's nicely packaged in plastic and one doesn't have to think too hard about how it came to be there.

I don't want to come off with a guilt-trip, but as this thread is essentially about the moral responsibility of those who eat, or don't eat, meat, I feel it is important to emphasize that as a consumer, one is responsible for what one is purchasing and eating.

When you boil it down, it really becomes a question of "what's more important to me: gratification of my taste-buds and cravings which may be almost equally gratified by vegetarian alternatives, or the lives and wellbeing of fellow creatures?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142

[Shanti29]

Namaste

You may wish to watch the film "Earthlings." It's about how animals are (ab)used by humans for meat, clothing, testing, pets, etc. and the suffering thereby caused to them. It shows more than tells.

It's a film very few can watch without weeping but it's, in my opinion, very important to see what actually goes on in the meat industry. It's very easy to consume meat when it's nicely packaged in plastic and one doesn't have to think too hard about how it came to be there.

I don't want to come off with a guilt-trip, but as this thread is essentially about the moral responsibility of those who eat, or don't eat, meat, I feel it is important to emphasize that as a consumer, one is responsible for what one is purchasing and eating.

When you boil it down, it really becomes a question of "what's more important to me: gratification of my taste-buds and cravings which may be almost equally gratified by vegetarian alternatives, or the lives and wellbeing of fellow creatures?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142

Well said.

"You can go to the supermarket now and meat comes in these boneless shrink-wrapped packages with very little reminder that it's an animal you're eating unless you buy a whole chicken... we're so in denial about this transaction with these animals. So one of the things I try to do in my work is remind people what's at stake, the sacrifice that goes into eating meat, if that's what you do."
-Michael Pollan

[IcyCosmic]

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path - Gita

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin. Tirukural 312, 321

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth. Mahabharat 115.47

These are my favourites but everyone has pretty much pointed out, where you may find these quotes. To be honest, I personally didn't quit on a scriptural basis, the fact that vegeterianism makes sense, spiritually, ecologically, healthwise are the main reasons and karmically and dharmically are just a plus because I made the decision before I was wholly religious. You don't need religion to know meat eating is wrong IMO.

You may also want to check out if Slaughterhouses had glass walls, just youtube it. As much as people hate Paul and PETA its actually a good video.
Take care bro.

[Shuddhasattva]

vegeterianism makes sense, spiritually, ecologically, healthwise


Namaste

IcySFX raises another excellent point here, that an author previously mentioned by Shanti (Michael Pollan) is also quite keen on.

Enormous amounts of land, water, nutrients and fossil fuels go towards producing meat, which is a very inefficient process. This is going to become a major issue in the world's food system very soon in an age of declining resources and increasing population/demand. Really, it already is.

As a basic example, it takes 200x more water to produce 1 lb of beef than 1lb of potatoes. Even when you adjust for protein produced per unit of water, vegetable sources are far more efficient.

Namaste

[mradam83]

Namaste,

Thank you all for the replies - apologies I can't reply to all individually.

I particularly resonated with Icy's as it made me think that there are a lot of things in life that you don't need religion to tell you it's wrong. I know I can't keep hiding behind the "man is a carnivore" excuse to myself forever.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

Now I've accepted my calling as a Hindu, I'm looking into improving myself and strengthening my growing acceptance of Sanatana Dharma. One area I'm a bit hazy on is Vegetarianism.

I've instinctively stopped consuming beef, and I'm doing much soul searching so I can get to the stage of being fully veg.

One thing I would like to know is if there's any scriptural basis for not eating meat?

I can guess that it's seen as wrong because it involves an animal dying. However, has this ever been expressly forbidden?

I'm also wondering the same for cows - is it an Indian cultural practise that has been adopted as part of Hinduism or is it the other way around as a part of Hinduism that became part of culture?

Thanks all.

Pranams,

This is a good question. This subject is a source of much confusion for many lay Hindus and newcomers alike.

The reality is, there were prescriptions for yagnas that did involve animal sacrifice. The animal in such a sacrifice would attain a "blessed state" according to Manu Samhita. Note that, these were only in the context of properly-performed yagnas - they were not a prescription for wholesale animal slaughter.

Outside of yagna, the principle is that one should be vegetarian, and there are tons of references that support this directly or indirectly. I will post a few here from my notes.

bhAgavata purANa (Gita Press Edition): 4.11.10, 4.25.7-8, 4.26.4-7, 4.28.26, 5.26.11-13, 5.26.24-25, 7.14.7-9, 7.15.10-11, 7.15.24, 9.6.6-9, 10.10.9, 10.10.12, 10.51.63, 11.5.14, 11.10.27-28

viShNu purANa (Parimal Publications Edition): 2.6.23, 3.16.1-3, 4.4.25-27

varAha purANa (Motilal translation): 8.2-4, 5.19-35, 37.4, 41.22-26, 116.16, 117.26, 121.24, 127.36, 135.41-47, 135.53-55, 136.60-65, 174.45, 202.62-68, 203.4-8, 203.12-13, 207.44,

These are just a few references from my notes. There are others that can be found in Manu Samhita 5th chapter (ironically, in the very chapter that praises the value of animal sacrifice). There are also a few indirect references in the Gita, such as Gita 3.13 in which we are advised to eat only foods offered in sacrifice. Note that Vedic morality is often layered and complex. The Varaaha Puraana in particular is full of stories of fallen, sinful people who get redeemed by the process of bhakti. There is even one story of a hunter who was a great Vishnu-bhakta in spite of his sinful lifestyle, and at whose expense an offense was committed by treating him as a lower person due to his sinful background. I think the take home point from these stories, is that one shouldn't judge too quickly a person's worth based on his background. But I would be hard pressed to extrapolate from them that meat-eating is acceptable for us. The bulk of evidence supports vegetarianism as a practice, and more specificially, the eating of only vegetarian foodstuffs offered in sacrifice.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

There is also a point to consider in the Vedaantic viewpoint of Brahman as the indwelling controller of all. Since the Paramaatma dwells within every jiivaatma, then it follows that He dwells also within the souls of animals and plants. Therefore, unauthorized violence against these entities is indirectly violence against Him.

[TatTvamAsi]

One of the main things to keep in mind is that people tend to apply western/abrahamic paradigms to Hinduism/India.

Hindus are not slaves who are beholden to some "book" or some "verses" in some scripture.

Abrahamics are slaves whose yahoo god tells them to jump, roll over, and yell and they do just that.

Our scriptures are not so much about do's and don'ts as opposed to creating a sattvic (life-affirming) surrounding to live in and follow a lifestyle with that principle in mind (and practice); that is why vegetarianism is part and parcel of Hinduism.

India/Hinduism is the ONLY civilization/country on the planet to have vegetarianism as a CULTURAL product that is adhered to by millions. Even today, India is home to the largest population of vegetarians.

One of the core principles of Hindu Dharma is ahimsa, from which vegetarianism arose. Hindus have been vegetarians for thousands of years, long before the advent of Buddhism. Nonetheless, it is vital to remember that Indians/Hindus do NOT need scriptural injunctions to do something; we are not slaves like the Abrahamics.

[mradam83]

One of the main things to keep in mind is that people tend to apply western/abrahamic paradigms to Hinduism/India.

Hindus are not slaves who are beholden to some "book" or some "verses" in some scripture.

Abrahamics are slaves whose yahoo god tells them to jump, roll over, and yell and they do just that.

Our scriptures are not so much about do's and don'ts as opposed to creating a sattvic (life-affirming) surrounding to live in and follow a lifestyle with that principle in mind (and practice); that is why vegetarianism is part and parcel of Hinduism.

India/Hinduism is the ONLY civilization/country on the planet to have vegetarianism as a CULTURAL product that is adhered to by millions. Even today, India is home to the largest population of vegetarians.

One of the core principles of Hindu Dharma is ahimsa, from which vegetarianism arose. Hindus have been vegetarians for thousands of years, long before the advent of Buddhism. Nonetheless, it is vital to remember that Indians/Hindus do NOT need scriptural injunctions to do something; we are not slaves like the Abrahamics.

Namaste.

Funnily enough, I have just commented along these lines in another thread.

I think I'm guilty of this at the minute, especially growing in an Anglican tradition. Even though I left the faith some time ago, it's that ingrained that there are commandments, laws, rules and one set way that it's really hard to remove it from the psyche.

Another interesting point is that in Britain, the Neo-Druid movement is now very strong and it proscribes such things as a love for nature, belief in reincarnation and a recommendation of Vegetarianism. I think that by looking at a new belief system popping up, it could be that the hold of the Abrahamics could be weakening slightly.

[philosoraptor]

One of the main things to keep in mind is that people tend to apply western/abrahamic paradigms to Hinduism/India.

Hindus are not slaves who are beholden to some "book" or some "verses" in some scripture.

I don't think the Vedas and their supplementary literatures count to the faithful as "some book" or "verses in some scripture."

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
　
namasté


There is also a point to consider in the Vedaantic viewpoint of Brahman as the indwelling controller of all. Since the Paramaatma dwells within every jiivaatma, then it follows that He dwells also within the souls of animals and plants. Therefore, unauthorized violence against these entities is indirectly violence against Him.
One must also consider this Being, dwells within and without. There is not one fiber or non-fiber that is not filled with brahman. It does not matter if it is plant, animal, human, the devatā-s, ākāśa or avakāśa (to make room, space). This is one reason why sanātana dharma has 14 catagories¹ of knowledge to offer mankind. One can find this Being in an ant or elephant, in indra or in a building ( vastu), or in the space that houses these entities.

With this knowlege then respect grows not only for living beings but for any-thing that has being at its core.

praṇām

words

vastu - any really existing or abiding substance or essence ; 'the one real substance or essence which has no second'
14 catagories - see this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=85217&postcount=60

[Seeker]

Yajvan Ji,
Your post referenced says 18!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
　
namasté


Yajvan Ji,
Your post referenced says 18!

I am happy you read it... many start with 14 then add the 4 veda-s. This is how some count. The veda-s as core then 14 catagories to surround them.

There too is a jyotish influence here:
1+4 = 5 and the 5th is the house of higher intelligence\knowledge. What then of 18 or 1 + 8 ? It equals the 9th house. What does the 9th house hold ? It is a dharma house.


It is of great interest ( to me ) that 4 and 8 are houses of mokṣa. Also 4 + 8 gives the 12th house and another
mokṣa house. SO then what does the 1st house represent that is common to both 14 and 18 ? A dharma house.

praṇām

[TatTvamAsi]

I don't think the Vedas and their supplementary literatures count to the faithful as "some book" or "verses in some scripture."

regards,

I would think you would know that's not what I meant. From an outsider's perspective, whose background/religion is based on do's and don'ts and a central "book", would look for similar things in other paths. My point was that the framework (looking for "one" book, scriptural injunctions, "supreme God" etc.) is at fault, not the actual source(s).

[philosoraptor]

I would think you would know that's not what I meant. From an outsider's perspective, whose background/religion is based on do's and don'ts and a central "book", would look for similar things in other paths. My point was that the framework (looking for "one" book, scriptural injunctions, "supreme God" etc.) is at fault, not the actual source(s).

Pranams. I apologize in advance that you won't have the opportunity to respond to this. What I post here is merely to clarify a point for the general audience. As I understood it, the point being made is that followers of Semitic religions are "slaves" to their scriptures which consist of "do's and don'ts" while Hindus have such do's and don'ts but are not slaves to them/don't need them/see the higher purpose behind them.

In all fairness, I don't think the distinction is so clear-cut, nor is it necessarily a Judeo/Christian/Islamic vs Hindu issue. Even within Hinduism, I'm sure we have all met people who follow specific regulations without being able to verbalize their significance in the grander context of seeking moksha. Nor do I think it fair to suggest that every Jew/Christian/Muslim follows regulations blindly. Nor is it really illuminating to suggest that the point of regulations is to create a saattvik atmosphere, especially if the implication is that one can create a saattvik atmosphere without regulations. In this regard, gItA 18.6-9 is quite instructive - it is performance of duties without expectation of reward that it is sAttvik according to Sri Krishna, whereas reununciation of them due to ignorance or inconvenience is said to be due to rajas or tamas. This is in keeping with the general theme of His teachings to Arjuna that discourage false and unauthorized renunciation.

But it's probably true that the average Hindu is far less likely to say that you are destined for eternal Hell because of not following this or that. This is more of a culture issue than scripture one. There are plenty of do's and don'ts mentioned in our smRitis and even mention of punishments, hell, etc for those who fail to carry them out. But as a matter of culture, refinement, etc, we as Hindus don't usually condemn people outright. There are also good internal reasons for this. As I noted in another posting, Vedic morality is often layered and complex. There are times when a person may seem to be outwardly sinful, fallen, low, etc when in fact he may be a great paramahamsa. There is also the very practical point that you have to be the change you wish to see in others (Gandhi said that), and you convince more people by honey rather than salt. :-)

regards,