Is vegetarianism required?

[ShivaIsLord]

Namaste,

Is vegetarianism required in Santana Dharma to be considered a "good person" or to not stir up bad karma?

I ask this because I *love* meat. Unfortunately, beef is one of my favorites, but I will give up beef no questions asked. As long as I can have others :P

Also, what's the ruling on Pork? As a former-Muslim, Pork was absolutely forbidden always. But I wanna go out and eat bacon, just as a little act of myself to separate myself from Islam. Childish, I know.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

If you like there are no rules, only suggestions in the shastras, you are what you eat. In the gita food is described as three kinds. Satvik food in the mode of goodness, Rajsik food in the mode of Passion, Tamsik food in the mood of Ignorance.

And then there is Ahimsa non violence, depends how far you want to take it, with Karuna compassion in mind.
Choice is yours really since the Karma is yours also.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,

Is vegetarianism required in Santana Dharma to be considered a "good person" or to not stir up bad karma?


Vannakkam: There is an entire section of this forum dedicated to this topic. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7 I would suggest you browse that section, and then, if you any more questions, come back and offer up new questions or ideas.

Aum Namasivaya

[Seeker]

Mu'mineen Ji,

GaneshPrasad Ji has said it concisely.

Let me add my 2 cents too.

For me vegetarianism was an automatic by-product of my readings , meditations and associations.

I used to consume meat and loved it but after my return to sanatana dharma , I found myself to be a vegetarian. My wife tells me that I have gone to other extreme , since I refuse to set traps for mice or kill insects!

Hopefully the same will happen to you. Without forcing yourself , you may find yourself working toward it.

[devotee]

Namaste Mumineen,

There are no hard and fast rules in Sanatan Dharma. There are various paths and there are varying rules depending upon path you choose. It may be surprising to you as you have come from Islam which dictates everything rigidly to its followers. But it is true here. The vaishnavas and Shaivas are pure vegetarians but ShAktas are not. Even a major portion of Hindu community which is non-sectarian eats as per its own choice.

This is not the time for you to be bothered about all this. I would advise that first of all you let yourself have a feel of this vast dharma which is not comparable with any other religion on this earth. It will take time. Even the born Hindus has difficulties in understanding everything in this vast Dharma. So, keep asking questions, reading scriptures and when you feel that it appeals to you decide on one path that suits you better. One you decide a path, you can follow as it prescribes.

OM

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

There are not hard and fast dogmatic rules, but there are hard and fast principles - like ahimsa (non-harm, with connotations of reverence for life.)

It's left to you to figure out to what extent you apply ahimsa.

For me, I take the following view:
1. Eating meat causes great unnecessary suffering, especially in the modern industrial meat industry, for little more reason than gratifying the taste buds.
2. It's ecologically and industrially harmful; ecologically it causes massive damages to the environment, ultimately creating unsustainable production systems, and industrially it uses precious land, water and inputs that much more efficiently generate vegetable nutrition - whether measured by calorie, protein, or any other metric. Moreover, it means that large quantities of vegetable mass are transformed into paltry amounts of meat.
3. Emotions are physical feelings; they are physically generated through chemicals, and they reside in residual form in the body. I don't like the idea of eating flesh suffused, chemically and energetically, with suffering, confusion and fear - how will this affect my mind?

Namaste

[philosoraptor]

Yes, you should be vegetarian. Unless you are participating in a grand animal-sacrifice in any of the ages prior to the Kali-Yuga, one that is administered by qualified brahmins whose spiritual potency is such that their mantras can cause the soul of the animal to be elevated to the status of a human being or deva, then you should be on a 100% lacto-vegetarian or vegan diet. One cannot expect liberation when one ignores the rules and regulations of scripture (see gItA 16.23-24).

More to the point, one is supposed to eat only food offered in sacrifice (see gItA 3.13). Any other foodstuff, even vegetarian food stuff, will cause one to accrue sin.

We have lots of dharma-shAstras and other smRtis which spell out rules and regulations on things like marriage, eating, sex, sleeping, cleanliness, etc. This is Reality. Most orthodox Hindus will follow one set of rules or another, and each set of rules will differ slightly from one source to another. There are also differences of rules with regards to different varnas (castes) and different genders. However, the point is, the rules are clearly there, and they aren't put in place just so we can ignore them.

Following of rules is not an end in and of itself. It is how we follow the path of sense control and good living so that we can qualify ourselves for liberation. One has to understand that the self is the soul and not the body. As long as one identifies with the body, one cannot understand this. Without controlling the senses, there is no question of attaining self-realization. And as long as one has a body and material desires, one has got to follow rules to avoid behaviors which increase the tendency towards bodily identification.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of Hindus who advocate the neo-Hindu revisionist idea of "we have no rules and regulations." Mostly, I think this is a reaction to Christianity and Islam rather than an objective statement based on fact. It's similar to the claim that Hinduism supposedly accepts all other religions, also an idea based on inter-religious interaction and also not supported by fact.

[kallol]

This topic has been discussed n number of times in this forum.

There is no hard and fast rule. Human is omnivorous and there are tine in history and places on earth where no vegetables are there. So it is a misnomer that vegeterinian is the only way.

However said hinduism is mostly to do with the state of mind. Now it is a proven fact that non veg and other tamasic or rajasik items affect the hormone and enzyme systems of our body and thus the mind. Just like for study we need a suitable environment, for spiritual growth we need better condition of mind. Otherwise the target achievement will be delayed or in day to day terms we will remain bad students.

For the actions we do, we need to introspect, how the action will affect my mind. Whether it will reduce the frequency og mind i.e. it will calm down my mind or make it more turbulent. That is the basic.

[philosoraptor]

This topic has been discussed n number of times in this forum.

There is no hard and fast rule. Human is omnivorous and there are tine in history and places on earth where no vegetables are there. So it is a misnomer that vegeterinian is the only way.

Pranams,

This is utterly ridiculous logic. Plant life was always a part of the Earth's biosphere for as long as Earth has had a biosphere. Without plantlife, there would be no means to convert CO2 to oxygen.

Modern vegetables came about due to modern agricultural methods, that is true. But we don't have conclusive evidence of a purely carnivorous human society existing prior to recorded history. Actually, we don't have conclusive empirical evidence of the kind of society the Puraanas and Itihaasas tell us about - one in which the people received the various sciences pertaining to civilization from great sages and/or devas. But, that is the traditional Hindu (Puraanic) point of view.


However said hinduism is mostly to do with the state of mind. Now it is a proven fact that non veg and other tamasic or rajasik items affect the hormone and enzyme systems of our body and thus the mind. Just like for study we need a suitable environment, for spiritual growth we need better condition of mind. Otherwise the target achievement will be delayed or in day to day terms we will remain bad students.

For the actions we do, we need to introspect, how the action will affect my mind. Whether it will reduce the frequency og mind i.e. it will calm down my mind or make it more turbulent. That is the basic.

I don't know why we have so much difficulty saying that "yes you should be vegetarian" and "meat-eating is generally considered sinful." These points have come up again and again in my readings of shAstra.

Let's have a show of hands. How many people participating in this thread are 100% true, lacto-vegetarians or vegans?

I am.

[Jainarayan]

But we don't have conclusive evidence of a purely carnivorous human society existing prior to recorded history.

Sure we do... the Inuit, for much of the year, which has been their way for milennia, considering that they migrated from northeast Siberia prior to about 15,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Paleo-Indians_period


Stefansson (1946) also observed that the Inuit were able to get the necessary vitamins they needed from their traditional winter diet, which did not contain any plant matter.

[philosoraptor]

Sure we do... the Inuit, for much of the year, which has been their way for milennia, considering that they migrated from northeast Siberia prior to about 15,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Paleo-Indians_period

I stand corrected. What I meant to say that we don't have (as far as I know), conclusive evidence that humanity in general was 100% carnivorous prior to the dawn of recorded history. Of course, it goes without saying that tribes living in primarily arctic regions were.

[Jainarayan]

I stand corrected. What I meant to say that we don't have (as far as I know), conclusive evidence that humanity in general was 100% carnivorous prior to the dawn of recorded history. Of course, it goes without saying that tribes living in primarily arctic regions were.

I believe you are right; I don't believe there was a time when any hominid was purely carnivorous. The dentition of fossils doesn't support pure carnivory.

Humans foraged for whatever they could find and were opportunistic feeders. In fact, rather than starting out carnivorous, humans may have been primarily vegetarian, as most of the great apes are. Hominids don't have the skills to effectively hunt, only scavenge. From my readings, it was later as proto-humans began to evolve into humans, it was the animal fat which was actually sought after, providing the energy for growth of the brain.

Chimpanzees occasionally hunt monkeys, however. Yet ironically, for having a primarily vegetarian diet, chimpanzees are far stronger than humans. Of course most of that is due to completely different muscle insertions and limb leverages. I saw an interesting picture many years ago in Nat Geo of a chimpanzee with a rare alopecia. It was completely hairless showing its musculature. You could put real money down that it was a human bodybuilder. It was eerie.

[kallol]

Pranams,

This is utterly ridiculous logic. Plant life was always a part of the Earth's biosphere for as long as Earth has had a biosphere. Without plantlife, there would be no means to convert CO2 to oxygen.

Modern vegetables came about due to modern agricultural methods, that is true. But we don't have conclusive evidence of a purely carnivorous human society existing prior to recorded history. Actually, we don't have conclusive empirical evidence of the kind of society the Puraanas and Itihaasas tell us about - one in which the people received the various sciences pertaining to civilization from great sages and/or devas. But, that is the traditional Hindu (Puraanic) point of view.



I don't know why we have so much difficulty saying that "yes you should be vegetarian" and "meat-eating is generally considered sinful." These points have come up again and again in my readings of shAstra.

Let's have a show of hands. How many people participating in this thread are 100% true, lacto-vegetarians or vegans?

I am.


Dear P...,

I have read some of your posts. I have developed respect for your thoughts. However, one needs to be completely inclusive to get to the level, what hinduism propounds, to align with the essence of hinduism. I hope you take these words in right spirit.

I am not going to debate on something, which has been debated long. However I would like you to ponder on some basic points.

1. To what level should we seggregate non-veg ? Many foods like milk, curd, idly, dosa, and many processed food have bacteria which are killed by the acid of my stomach. Even in that term live plants are also used in food and they have life also. So where is the dividing line ? Jains are much stricter in this sense, where as normal hindus are not. Who is vegeterian - jains or hindus ?

2. If you look at the evolution then you will find after the five elements were established with right proportion, the plant life came. Then came the herbivorous, next carnivorous and lastly omnivorous. Human on the top. There is reason for this. To survive the worst conditions.

3. Knowledge is a product of mind and intellect - both in subtle world. These only travel from body to body. These only take one towards moksha. Body is only the means. Body is perishable. Body needs to survive in worst conditions to allow the mind and intellect to function. The needs for body are different than needs for mind. For normal living one need not bother about veg or non veg. However if one chooses spiritual path, veg food will help him create the right environment for the mind.

I have an humble suggestions. Our scriptures are great. However to assimilate these, one has to relive or rediscover the knowledge through severe analysis and by getting to the basics. In some posts, I feel, you are not getting the basics.

We all are learning. So we do not want to impose our thoughts. We only put up our points.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,


Dear P...,

I have read some of your posts. I have developed respect for your thoughts. However, one needs to be completely inclusive to get to the level, what hinduism propounds, to align with the essence of hinduism. I hope you take these words in right spirit.

It all depends on what you think "Hinduism" is. There is no entity designated as "Hinduism" in our scriptures. This is a socio-political concept used as a term of convenience to designate a wide variety of traditions and practices, most of which disagree with each other on at least a few points. As such, there is no universal rulebook for "Hinduism" which says we must be "inclusive" of everyone's beliefs.



I am not going to debate on something, which has been debated long. However I would like you to ponder on some basic points.

1. To what level should we seggregate non-veg ? Many foods like milk, curd, idly, dosa, and many processed food have bacteria which are killed by the acid of my stomach. Even in that term live plants are also used in food and they have life also. So where is the dividing line ? Jains are much stricter in this sense, where as normal hindus are not. Who is vegeterian - jains or hindus ?

My reply: It is true that one cannot avoid sin simply by eating vegetarian foodstuffs. Hence, the position of gItA 3.13 is that one should offer only those foodstuffs offered in yagna. In our pujas, it is tradition to offer vegetarian foodstuffs and that too with certain restrictions. Animal sacrifices are not permitted for Kali-Yuga.



2. If you look at the evolution then you will find after the five elements were established with right proportion, the plant life came. Then came the herbivorous, next carnivorous and lastly omnivorous. Human on the top. There is reason for this. To survive the worst conditions.

This is not the position of our scriptures, nor is your conclusion that it is therefore acceptable to be a carnivore acceptable either. More importantly, none of this is relevant to our discussion. If you have an ISP and the means to browse the web, we can confidently say that you are not a member of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe whose survival depends on the constant killing of innocent animals.



3. Knowledge is a product of mind and intellect - both in subtle world. These only travel from body to body. These only take one towards moksha. Body is only the means. Body is perishable. Body needs to survive in worst conditions to allow the mind and intellect to function. The needs for body are different than needs for mind. For normal living one need not bother about veg or non veg. However if one chooses spiritual path, veg food will help him create the right environment for the mind.

This is a Hinduism forum, and as such, is designed for those interested in a spiritual path. Those who are on a "spiritual path" do not consider life without spirituality to be "normal living." Living merely for the pleasure of one's senses without any regard for the fact that one will eventually give up the body is not normal. Only a human can consider the abstract possibility that there is something more to life than merely eating, drinking, mating, and sleeping. For humans, we have scriptures to guide us on the right path for our ultimate good. And our scriptures have this to say regarding food:



Bg 17.7 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/17/7) — Even the food each person prefers is of three kinds, according to the three modes of material nature. The same is true of sacrifices, austerities and charity. Now hear of the distinctions between them.
Bg 17.8 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/17/8) — 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.
Bg 17.9 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/17/9) — Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease.
Bg 17.10 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/17/10) — Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.


As always, please check any translation of the gItA you feel comfortable with. There is no getting around the fact that our scriptures, which you consider to be great, divide food into three categories (goodness/passion/ignorance) and that they recommend a lifestyle that is sAttvik.



I have an humble suggestions. Our scriptures are great. However to assimilate these, one has to relive or rediscover the knowledge through severe analysis and by getting to the basics.

Or we could just do what the scriptures command us to do.




In some posts, I feel, you are not getting the basics.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Have a nice day!

[kallol]

Pranams,



It all depends on what you think "Hinduism" is. There is no entity designated as "Hinduism" in our scriptures. This is a socio-political concept used as a term of convenience to designate a wide variety of traditions and practices, most of which disagree with each other on at least a few points. As such, there is no universal rulebook for "Hinduism" which says we must be "inclusive" of everyone's beliefs.



My reply: It is true that one cannot avoid sin simply by eating vegetarian foodstuffs. Hence, the position of gItA 3.13 is that one should offer only those foodstuffs offered in yagna. In our pujas, it is tradition to offer vegetarian foodstuffs and that too with certain restrictions. Animal sacrifices are not permitted for Kali-Yuga.



This is not the position of our scriptures, nor is your conclusion that it is therefore acceptable to be a carnivore acceptable either. More importantly, none of this is relevant to our discussion. If you have an ISP and the means to browse the web, we can confidently say that you are not a member of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe whose survival depends on the constant killing of innocent animals.



This is a Hinduism forum, and as such, is designed for those interested in a spiritual path. Those who are on a "spiritual path" do not consider life without spirituality to be "normal living." Living merely for the pleasure of one's senses without any regard for the fact that one will eventually give up the body is not normal. Only a human can consider the abstract possibility that there is something more to life than merely eating, drinking, mating, and sleeping. For humans, we have scriptures to guide us on the right path for our ultimate good. And our scriptures have this to say regarding food:



As always, please check any translation of the gItA you feel comfortable with. There is no getting around the fact that our scriptures, which you consider to be great, divide food into three categories (goodness/passion/ignorance) and that they recommend a lifestyle that is sAttvik.



Or we could just do what the scriptures command us to do.




I'm sorry that you feel that way. Have a nice day!

Sorry P...,

Reading the first answer itself triggered me that P... is still to get over the ego bias. He is mostly after scoring browny points. He has strong notion of what is right and what is wrong - which generally are relative to time space and society.

As Devoteeji mentioned - it might be fruitless to have discussion with you. You may feel great with the scores you get, but at the end you will feel lonely - for your strong likes and dislikes.

Best wishes

[philosoraptor]

Sorry P...,

Reading the first answer itself triggered me that P... is still to get over the ego bias. He is mostly after scoring browny points. He has strong notion of what is right and what is wrong - which generally are relative to time space and society.

As Devoteeji mentioned - it might be fruitless to have discussion with you. You may feel great with the scores you get, but at the end you will feel lonely - for your strong likes and dislikes.

Best wishes

Pranams,

Indeed, Kallol and Devoteeji have got it right for once. This soul entrapped within this body known as Philosoraptor on these forums is truly a locus of many bad qualities, chief among them being pride. It is my great pleasure to be flamed when I act up, and I hope to become more sAttvik by the experience.

Still, I do not desist from my view that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong." If I wanted to believe morality was relative, as you feel I should, I would have no need for religion to tell me this. Instead, I could just adopt atheism or agnosticism as many of my friends have.

Also, I do not desist from my view that Sri Krishna's teachings are authoritative and for our benefit. And His views on these subjects are clear:

yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ /
bhuñjate te tv aghaṁ pāpā ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt // gItA 3.13 //

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."

yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ /
na sa siddhim avāpnoti na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim // gItA 16.23 //

"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."

tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau /
jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ karma kartum ihārhasi // gItA 16.24 //

"One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated."

yāta-yāmaṁ gata-rasaṁ pūti paryuṣitaṁ ca yat /
ucchiṣṭam api cāmedhyaṁ bhojanaṁ tāmasa-priyam // gItA 17.10 //

"Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness."

As always, I beg a thousand pardons from all those Hindus who are offended by Bhagavad-gItA.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I also forgot to mention that false humility is another one of my vices. All members of this forum may feel free at any time to point out my faults as this will be very good for my saadhana. I mean this seriously.

regards,

[PARAM]

ॐ has made food for all but flesh and blood is not our food only a beast will eat others and make such claims on real food. Sri Krishna's milkaholic ways are not acceptable to meat eaters. They need to read Bhagwad Gita and other Dharma Grantham including those who are related to Krishna, their claim of Krishna not objecting meat is a lie.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

We are not fundamentalists. We need not dogmatically adhere to, and bash eachother over the heads with, this or that passage from this or that scripture.

I personally feel strongly that vegetarianism is the only morally defensible way of life.

However, it is important that our dharma receive candidates at the level they are prepared to accept, and guide them ever higher.

What are we to say when only 30% of Hindus are vegetarian?

Are we to climb upon the highest soap box we can find - the rooftops perhaps - and decry their excesses, and brand them - like cattle - as non-Hindu?

Or are we to affirm their Hinduness, and use that to guide them back to a more true dharma? Likewise, with those newly interested in entering the path, are we to hold them at bay with rules they find burdensome and are unaccustomed to bearing, or can we give them tools so that they can effectively carry a larger load, and make use of it, rather than being as donkeys carrying sandalwood they know not the value of.

We should not be doing (or not doing) things because ink on paper says do this, or don't do that. Frankly, our religion doesn't really work that way, and those who think it do probably have little actual experience with it between the lines. True dharma is svadharma, which follow from principles, not dogma. The principles are the ethical essence of the scriptures, these are the truly important things, an understanding of which makes strong and wise the svadharma.

Let us commit ourselves first to ahimsa, and to imbibing the essence of the scriptures. Later will follow ethical awakenings, and naturally a conviction not to partake of flesh will arise, a yearning to be right before oneself. Vairagya cannot be forced, certainly not by such a paper tiger as book learning.

We should ask ourselves: which approach is actually most effective in working with, and changing, our audience? Puritanical moral outrage expressed as mixed condemnation/command, or meeting at the level and guiding further at the appropriate pace?

As in politics, it is an important thing to be able to separate one's personal convictions - what one imposes on one's self, from what one considers allowable for others. Otherwise, fundamentalism and blindness result.

Namaste

[ShivaIsLord]

Namaste,

I thank everyone for their posts. I think I have been convinced of why I need to be a vegetarian.

I'm going to create a blog (http://dharmichealth.tumblr.com/) to track my progress.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


Namaste

....

I personally feel strongly that vegetarianism is the only morally defensible way of life.

...

Let us commit ourselves first to ahimsa, and to imbibing the essence of the scriptures.

Indeed. I also believe vegetarianism is the ethical and compassionate thing to do. Especially having seen animals die right in front of me that I tried to save. How, when I spent weeks medicating and crying over animals I rescued, could I partake of those deliberately killed!? Imo, even if one looks at it from the ahimsa and compassionate p.o.v. only, it automatically it puts you in synch and meshed with Scriptures.

All just my p.o.v., of course.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I cannot find any intelligent reason to accept the premise that because 70% of people do something, we are therefore obligated to find some moral foundation upon which it can be defended and then included under the banner of "different-but-acceptable behaviors."

Religion is supposed to change us, not vice-versa. Changing our principles to accomodate those who don't want to follow them may make us more acceptable politically. But it does not make us more qualified spiritually.

It's called sanAtana-dharma for a reason. It can't be "sanAtana" if we change it every week to better fit the popular expectations of those who don't want to get serious about their spiritual life.

Shaastras remain the authority on spiritual matters. No one can assert that his opinions are authoritative, for this would require additional assumptions about that person's credentials, and then more assumptions that those who disagree are not so authoritative, etc. Hence, it is shaastra that tells us about the world beyond and how we are supposed to realize it. Unfortunately for some, following of shAstra is equated with dogma and fanaticism. I find this to be a sad commentary on how Neo-Hinduism and moral relativism have so gripped the Hindu imagination as to make it impossible to have a sensible discussion about acquiring right knowledge.

On a lighter note, user Param is hereby placed on notice for labeling Sri Krishna as a "milkaholic." Fie on you, Param! Were you not aware that He steals butter and yogurt also?

Everyone knows that the proper term is "lactoholic."

[Jainarayan]

On a lighter note, user Param is hereby placed on notice for labeling Sri Krishna as a "milkaholic." Fie on you, Param! Were you not aware that He steals butter and yogurt also?

Everyone knows that the proper term is "lactoholic."

It could be worse. I don't know what the original Sanskrit dialogue was, but in the Mahābhārat tv series, Duryodhana calls Krishna "that milkman". :eek:

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste


I cannot find any intelligent reason to accept the premise that because 70% of people do something, we are therefore obligated to find some moral foundation upon which it can be defended and then included under the banner of "different-but-acceptable behaviors." I understand that mistakes can be made in a rush to bake our points, but you may wish to reread my post so that your arguments actually address what I am saying.


Religion is supposed to change us, not vice-versa. Changing our principles to accomodate those who don't want to follow them may make us more acceptable politically. But it does not make us more qualified spiritually.


It's called sanAtana-dharma for a reason. It can't be "sanAtana" if we change it every week to better fit the popular expectations of those who don't want to get serious about their spiritual life.

Shaastras remain the authority on spiritual matters. No one can assert that his opinions are authoritative, for this would require additional assumptions about that person's credentials, and then more assumptions that those who disagree are not so authoritative, etc. Hence, it is shaastra that tells us about the world beyond and how we are supposed to realize it. Unfortunately for some, following of shAstra is equated with dogma and fanaticism. I find this to be a sad commentary on how Neo-Hinduism and moral relativism have so gripped the Hindu imagination as to make it impossible to have a sensible discussion about acquiring right knowledge.Just as is God changeless and always-changing, so is the dharma.

The dharma is timeless, unchanging. The dharma is without beginning or end, always changing.

It changes to accommodate, yes, just as does a mother, who, as our first guru, plants the seeds of all virtues. Jai mata bhava, an exalted state of being, may we all realize that we have all been mothers to all beings, and our hearts stationed in this truth.

A good mother is full of virtues, but does she demand that her child be able to match her own standards? Of course not, if she did, there would effectively be no bond between them, and no learning process. Childhood is a process of educational transgression, much like karma and embodied life in general. How lucky are we to have the mother as guide in childhood, may the dharma be likewise for us throughout our life, and may we never forget that the dharma is embodied in the mother.

Likewise, the dharma is our eternal mother, giving to us our own true nature; this is the function of the dharma, this is also what a human mother does in bringing forth and nurturing life, causing it to manifest its own nature. What an incomparable gift.

So then, let our dharma be a mother to us. May it change to accommodate the needs of the time, the place, the society it manifests itself. It is moral, for the sake of the immoral. It is just, for the sake of the unjust, and it is kind for the sake of the unkind. It reforms everything in its image.

The sanatana dharma is openly manifest in all systems of thought - wherever there is truth, righteousness and spiritually efficacious means, the Sanatana Dharma lives. Most particularly, from our viewpoints, it is manifest most powerfully as our own convictions, which cannot be forced to arise by scriptural injunction, though indeed they can result from a true reading of scripture; the reading is not true merely because the words are.

It is not in vain that Yudhisthir, verily Dharmaraj himself, expressed that Svadharma is the highest dharma. No shastric injunction, phrased and understood in mere vaikhari, can compare to the pashyanti injunctions from the adi guru within, the wordless resolve to be worthy of the supreme grace.

I will say it plainly: you are not a Sanatana Dharmi, as you are rigidly defining it, without the revelation of god within.

From reading your posts, it seems to me that God is too external for you still, like the Abrahamic idolater marked by Cain - dharma and god are still seen as fundamentally outside. This is what your sadhana truly needs if you really do invite me to speak forthrightly on this manner. You may intellectually acknowledge the inward dwelling Paramatman, or the all pervading nature of Brahman, but your focus seems almost entirely bent outwards to an external, disassociated God. How then can you enjoy the eternal association that is the blessing of dvaita? That god within you is still book knowledge for you. Make this knowledge come to life - you have the capacity, even without a guru. Put your book learning to use; hand over the reins of your senses to Sri Krishna, position yourself between ignorance and knowledge, and supplicate the paramatman as your guru, seeing it not only in yourself, but in all others - even those vile, meat-eating sinners who are not privileged of either shastra or shraddha. You will see differently. It will not cost you your dvaita, though the house of your ego may burn down to its foundations.

A system that is right, yet not practicable, is not right at all.

Namaste

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

There is no need to make this discussion more complicated that it has to be. The question was "is vegetarianism required?" The answer quite simply is "yes." Unless you happen to be restricting yourself to meats obtained through Vedic yagnas, there really is no other allowance for meat-eating within the Vedic tradition. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong on this point, but Sri Krishna's statement (gItA 3.13) is pretty clear on the actual principle here. For those who don't like the gItA, you can also consider checking out mahAbhArta (bhIshma parva), manu-smRti (5th chapter), varAha purANa, and bhAgavata purANa (4th and 11th skandhas) just to name a few. All are pretty clear on the point that one should give up meat-eating and that meat-eating is cruel and sinful.

I am well aware of the fact that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of clarity in scripture. This often manifests itself as innuendo to the effect that it is "dogma" or that you are "being rigid." This says more about the discomfort of the people making the comments than it does about the principles or their essence. Granted that not all of scripture is clear, especially when it comes to highly metaphorical statements on philosophy. Nor is it always the case that we have access to historical context to evaluate certain prescriptions. However, the rules against consumption of meat are very clear, based as they are on a worldview which holds that all living things are jIvAtmas, regardless of the bodies in which they dwell, and as such are capable of suffering and are deserving of mercy.

After denouncing the statements of the gItA as "dogmatic," Suddha is graceful enough to tell us that he still believes that vegetarianism and ahimsa are the ideal which we must gradually inculcate in others. That's all fine and good, but what do you say to someone who professes to follow "sanAtana-dharma" and yet believes otherwise? Are we doing him any favors by failing to be clear with him on the correct principle? Are we doing the animals any favors who are going to lose their lives for the sake of his tastebuds?

Just be clear and forthright, and answer these questions frankly and authoritatively. I can speak from experience on this - people will respect you for your honesty and your clearly-stated principles even if they don't always agree with you at first. Many times I have seen, that when they respect you and realize that you practice what you preach and don't compromise just to make friends, they start to change and become more like you. There is nothing at all impractical about being vegetarian, unless you live in the Arctic circle or are a nomadic hunter.

Back in school, my Muslim friends knew that I was vegetarian. I never preached anything to them, but when they asked me about my vegetarianism, I clearly explained the principle and why we considered meat-eating sinful. I never insisted that they change their ways in order to earn my friendship. Neverthless, I began to notice that they would stop eating meat around me voluntarily, and when they visited me in my home, they would voluntarily remove their shoes before entering. I never asked them to do these things for me - this came from respect.

I think Gandhi referred to this as "be the change you wish to see in the world."

regards,

[Believer]

-
Another mullah bites the dust!
-

[Ninendiva]

I would like to reply this question, is vegetarianism necessary, by viewing it specifically from the perspective of ahisma. If vegetarianism is taken up because of ahisma, one needs to consider the pesticides that kill bugs in order to preserver vegetables and fruits. Land that is taken away from animals specifically for farming. If you purchase organic, they you can know you are not purchasing things where pesticides were used. But then couldn't you also buy meat from organic, harm free producers? I like in a state in America where farming is very important and we have many farms that are harm free and good for the animals. This creates as little pain and harm for the animal as possible, making it good for them and for us. I think one has to realize that it's impossible to avoid killing animals or killing nature. We write on paper from trees. We drive cars that harm the environment. And we take drugs, use make up, or other things that were tested on animals. Is it right to protect animals, but not nature itself?


This is just my opinion though. It could be right, it could be wrong - it's only an opinion for others to think about. If you are vegetarian out of the desire to do as little harm as possible, there are still ways you are doing harm. I think it's near impossible of man to exist without harm to the environment.

[Jodhaa]

I would like to reply this question, is vegetarianism necessary, by viewing it specifically from the perspective of ahisma. If vegetarianism is taken up because of ahisma, one needs to consider the pesticides that kill bugs in order to preserver vegetables and fruits. Land that is taken away from animals specifically for farming. If you purchase organic, they you can know you are not purchasing things where pesticides were used. But then couldn't you also buy meat from organic, harm free producers? I like in a state in America where farming is very important and we have many farms that are harm free and good for the animals. This creates as little pain and harm for the animal as possible, making it good for them and for us. I think one has to realize that it's impossible to avoid killing animals or killing nature. We write on paper from trees. We drive cars that harm the environment. And we take drugs, use make up, or other things that were tested on animals. Is it right to protect animals, but not nature itself?


This is just my opinion though. It could be right, it could be wrong - it's only an opinion for others to think about. If you are vegetarian out of the desire to do as little harm as possible, there are still ways you are doing harm. I think it's near impossible of man to exist without harm to the environment.

Namaste Ninendiva!

I think you make very good points. These were issues that occurred to me when considering whether become vegetarian or not. I think the overall idea is that while it is true one cannot exist without causing some harm, the idea is to do as little as possible.

Peace!

[TatTvamAsi]

This topic of vegetarianism has been discussed to death on HDF.

Philosoraptor has made the point unequivocally. There are some on this forum (and elsewhere) who wish to compromise the principles of Dharma just to "appear" friendly or inclusive. This is a dangerous trend that should be nipped at the bud.

The real joke here is that flesh-eating barbarians consider themselves as "civilized". One just has to ask them why they don't eat dogs and cats as well. Are they dog/cat worshipers? No, they will say. They usually rebut this question by saying dogs/cats are pets and so eating them is considered bad. Just look at the hypocrisy in that statement. That is crux of the principle here. Just because these "people" think dogs/cats are cute, and so they become pets, they have some value and are worth preserving (so to speak). It is not that they feel compassion for the animals due to its intrinsic value; that it deserves its due course in life just as every other being, but because they feel that it is worth something to them, they should not be killed. So, if for instance they had chickens as pets, they won't eat them because chickens are "cute" or whatever. This is the same ideology that made them put into law, not just think, that black people were not completely human and were murdered at the drop of a hat with little to no consequence. This is why they can wage wars and murder thousands of "other" people and still have the temerity to say that they are "civilized" and "moral".

Hindus, for thousands of years, way before the advent of nastika darSanas of Buddhism/Jainism, have cultivated the principle of ahimsa and has held all living beings worthy of respect. We must do our best to minimize the harm we cause just by living. That's why, if someone cannot survive without meat (Kalahari bushmen etc.), they can eat meat. We don't go there and try to convert them to vegetarianism and say, "eat organic" or some tripe nonsense.

This is also why many of these vermin have a penchant for trying to "prove" that Hindus during the time of Sri Rama, or Sri Rama himself, "ate meat". Their insecurities have really taken a toll on them. Our Hindu way of life was, is, and always will be unparalleled. That is why our system of marriage (arranged marriage) has remained strong for so long and the divorce rate in India is so low; it is no coincidence.

The SastrAs are clear on what one needs to do to cultivate a Dharmic way of life. To do this, meat eating should be avoided. Those who don't have the self-discipline need not conform, but they are in no way Dharmic. That's like saying one wants to be considered a mathematician without studying mathematics. Just look at the symbols and admire the conic sections and "feel good" will make you just as good of a mathematician as those who toiled for years and sacrificed so much to get there (in the case of Hindu Dharma, it's lifetimes).

This same selfish outlook can be applied to the "Green Movement". If we continue the way we do, WE won't have a healthy place to live. Who cares about the earth or the environment and their intrinsic value? It is about US! tsk tsk.. mlecchas.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste TatTvanAsi

Having been to India a dozen times, I am actually aware from observation of the large numbers of those who eat beef (cow) and pork (pig). While eating such in the US for example is very sad, and in notable numbers, there are reforms happening in the consciosness of Americans in this regards but there is still a long way to go.

While the numbers in the US may upon face value be larger than in India, simply taking into account the billion plus population of India the numbers of those eating beef and pork may be much larger than you think, and even not that far from the same number in the US for example simply do to (1) the math of such a huge population in India, (2) the increasing wealth of Indians who can afford such karmic food and (3) as you state the sad trend to fit in... There is no excuse, and while there is a trend away from beef and pork in the US though it is a weak trend, unfortunately it seems there is a trend towards such habit in India. Perhaps this can be reversed through pride in culture and pride in Hinduism.

Starting in the 1980s many, many educated Indians started to move to the West. This has accelerated the interest in Hindusm in the West, but also some such Hindu Indians also have taken to very bad habit even including beef and pork. It is odd in one way, the West is getting some reforms from India and Indians who migrate to the West, but some of those Indians start to take up beef and pork for example.

You know, there is nothing more anti-smoking fanatic than an ex-smoker. Such reformed smokers more often are the most strick and vocal critics of smoking. Isn't that true?

So also the most vocal and strick voices against eating beef and pork are often those who may have started out as such but then became reformed. They are the one's who often go public and "get in the street" if you will to fight against such habit.

So perhaps one of the best ways to counter such increasing beef and pork consumption in India is to bring a bunch of Western ex-beef and ex-pork eaters who now hate such, or Western ex meat eaters who are now fanatical vegans of devotion, bring them to India and perhaps these mleechas as you call them may change the mind set of so many Indians who are now trending to eat beef.


I was shocked to see, while on an airplane flying to India, so many Indians dressed as Hindus or Sikh who were eating sausage weiners on a Western airline flying into Delhi. It was sad to see.

Om Namah Sivaya

[TatTvamAsi]

Hello ShivaFan,

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by saying that "you've come across Indians who eat meat". I never implied nor stated that Indians, many of them, refrain from eating meat. Most, however, do not eat beef and pork. Coming across a westerner who is vegetarian is still very rare in the west, except in areas like where I live (Bay Area, CA). This is due to the enormous influence of a variety of factors; one of the largest Indian/Hindu populations in the US resides here, Berkeley was where many counter-cultural movements in the US during the 1960's took place, and people here (westerners) are not that xenophobic when compared to dumps in the armpits of america.

By absolute numbers or otherwise, there are simply far more Indians/Hindus who are vegetarian and are so due to Hindu influences than in the west, or anywhere else in the world. There is no comparison at all. Anyhow, the point here was to address the OP's question whether one "needs" to be vegetarian to be Hindu.

The fact of the matter is that Hindu society today is in shambles as far as a unified voice on such matters is concerned. Even otherwise, it really depends on the path the sAdhakA chooses. ShaktAs, for instance, are usually non-vegetarian. Smartas (not smartasS ;)), are almost all strict vegetarians. So, in essence, the question is really asking what makes one an authentic Hindu?

I have a certain viewpoint that is not popular even among Hindus. Hindus have been blindly taught to include anybody and everybody; partly due to the non-confrontational predisposition of the Indian ethos, as well as a severe inferiority complex, especially when compared to westerners. This is actually a never ending argument as many Swamis who are erudite Hindus will balk at the moment somebody brings up SAstric injunctions or principles.

Hindus are very afraid of difference or being different from others. In an effort to fit in and appear similar, they will go to any extent to claim sameness with others, despite the fact that those "others" are inimical towards India/Hinduism - Abrahamics for instance.

This is why you have people partaking psychedelics who claim that they too are Hindus when they are actually indulging in tamasic habits.

The point of the sAstrAs is to change OURSELVES, not it! I find that most westerners who come across anything that requires them to change have tremendous inertia and instead try to manipulate the source to fit their lifestyle or habits. In other words, they try to change the philosophy/religion/scripture etc. This is the very thing that so-called "religion" is against! We must change ourselves. It is not easy, but nobody said sAdhanA was "easy".

Many Indians emigrated to the west starting in the 1960s. My relatives came to Canada/US in the mid-1960s. Even then, it is not in the Hindu mindset to "change" others. This is why we don't "convert". People, eventually, will realize the folly in their ways and will rectify their rotten habits. It is not up to us to correct them and force them to change, no matter how barbaric their ways may seem. This is why Hindus are not "up in arms" about the meat industry worldwide. We know that those who are mature enough to think about ahimsa will eventually wean off of meat but those who are not will continue in their ways. It is not up to us to "change" them. Westerners, in particular, have this penchant for trying to change others to fit their own ideas; a deep insecurity and/or inferiority complex. They cannot bear difference and are always "concerned" as to why "others" do things differently. This is why they are "thumping" democracy around the world instead of the bible (they do that too but now it's considered taboo so they resort to more devious means of thumping that rag).

It is best if we just stick to ourselves; after all, we are better off with our own kind. That is the way of the past, present, and future. This synthetic attempt to shove everybody and their ways of life together is a recipe for disaster. This is why Indians/Hindus determined a society will perform optimally when its habitants focus on their strengths instead of worrying about what others are doing.

Vegetarianism has to come from the roots. It is simply not there outside of India. For it to take root, Hindus will have to really transplant their culture to other countries and given Indians/Hindus reluctance to propogate their lifestyle(s), the chance of that happening is qute low. That is why it has sustained in India for thousands of years. It is not a fad like it is in the west. Yoga is of the same vein as it was introduced to the west by Indians in the 1960s (although it made an entrance far before) it has become an "exercise for the body, of the body, and by the body", devoid of any of the real yogic underpinnings.

I sincerely hope vegetarianism spreads and spreads slowly; as that will more likely stick than a fast "trend" etc.


Namaste TatTvanAsi

Having been to India a dozen times, I am actually aware from observation of the large numbers of those who eat beef (cow) and pork (pig). While eating such in the US for example is very sad, and in notable numbers, there are reforms happening in the consciosness of Americans in this regards but there is still a long way to go.

While the numbers in the US may upon face value be larger than in India, simply taking into account the billion plus population of India the numbers of those eating beef and pork may be much larger than you think, and even not that far from the same number in the US for example simply do to (1) the math of such a huge population in India, (2) the increasing wealth of Indians who can afford such karmic food and (3) as you state the sad trend to fit in... There is no excuse, and while there is a trend away from beef and pork in the US though it is a weak trend, unfortunately it seems there is a trend towards such habit in India. Perhaps this can be reversed through pride in culture and pride in Hinduism.

Starting in the 1980s many, many educated Indians started to move to the West. This has accelerated the interest in Hindusm in the West, but also some such Hindu Indians also have taken to very bad habit even including beef and pork. It is odd in one way, the West is getting some reforms from India and Indians who migrate to the West, but some of those Indians start to take up beef and pork for example.

You know, there is nothing more anti-smoking fanatic than an ex-smoker. Such reformed smokers more often are the most strick and vocal critics of smoking. Isn't that true?

So also the most vocal and strick voices against eating beef and pork are often those who may have started out as such but then became reformed. They are the one's who often go public and "get in the street" if you will to fight against such habit.

So perhaps one of the best ways to counter such increasing beef and pork consumption in India is to bring a bunch of Western ex-beef and ex-pork eaters who now hate such, or Western ex meat eaters who are now fanatical vegans of devotion, bring them to India and perhaps these mleechas as you call them may change the mind set of so many Indians who are now trending to eat beef.


I was shocked to see, while on an airplane flying to India, so many Indians dressed as Hindus or Sikh who were eating sausage weiners on a Western airline flying into Delhi. It was sad to see.

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste TatTvamAsi

It’s hard to stay away from the HDF even for one day! I am on my way to a big multi-national Indian-style Hindu wedding (not me, I am already married!) but with the advent of technology the HDF is right there on my cell phone and I am just a finger touch away from reading and participating. But forgive any typos since I am using the smart phone which isn’t smart enough to aid me in UI replies using a touch keyboard and very small type and clumsy windows while navigating using the phone. I am usually better at this type of finger typing while sitting down like I am right now, and not while driving a car which I admit I have done a couple of times (in violation of the law and at risk of a very expensive traffic ticket!).

The world is becoming smaller. That’s a fact. So the borders of what is Hinduism, is larger, much larger than in the past. I really like some of the facts you shared, and I agree with them. Also, I think in part I was misunderstood as to some of the ideas that I posted, but considering the pace of the world today that makes it hard to sometimes communication real intent.

I never intended to imply that Hinduism is an evangelistic type truth that goes about trying to “convert” others. Satay also has clarified that in postings, and I fully agree. Just about four weeks ago, a very nice girl came to my front door to ask me about religion. She asked what “religion” I was, and I proudly said I am a Hindu. Yes, it turned out she was of some Christian sect (I think she was Mormon), but her reaction was actually very surprising. The reason I am not sure what Christian sect she was, was my revelation that I am a Hindu changed her conversation entirely. She was a young girl, a little nervous, but she responded how interesting that is. She did not condemn or say “you are going to go to hell” and such, she said there are positive things in all religions and she has encountered many religions door to door, and if I were ever interested (and she hands me a card for some church) … Of course, this is not typical of the aggressive type of Christians.
Hinduism does not engage in such activities, it is not part of the ethos and I never said it should be. But nothing is going to stop its expansion, it doesn’t need such activities to do so. Even exclusiveness within a community will make no difference, truth seems to be something of interest to too many souls in this world, and in a world that is ever increasingly becoming “smaller” (that is, this Earth or Mother Bhumi is smaller, of course the universe is very large and many souls have a long way to travel perhaps as time shapes things).

So as far as how Hinduism is, and belongs, to the entire Universe, across Lokas and such, that has nothing to do with a proselyting path. I never say so, but what I say does matter, it is what the teachers say. And what Devas and Devi decide to manifest. There are many things that come into play.

In regards to teachers, the Guru, the Saint, the Yogi, the mystic, the savant, I actually within my own observation (though flawed due to bodily prison), I see the opposite of what perhaps you see. Meaning, in regards to those who for example by Their grace and wisdom the West has benefited from, of all the so-called “Masters” and Gurus (of which some were bad, yes, but typically it would involve sexual matters and not karmic foods) actually I cannot think of even one who actually “changed the rules” regarding for example karmic foods – in fact, my experience has been they are the most strict of them all. You noted Shakti teachers, of which I did meet two, one was 100% a message of vegan principle, the other was not but definitely against eating beef or pork.

In fact, the few times where I was shocked to find schools or teachers who “bent rules” to be more “Western” regarding karmic foods, the only ones I saw were in India, not in the West. In regards to sexual matters, I think there are even many recent examples of bending things to have occured among Swamis who are India-centric than West facing. Maybe I am blind or confused, but that has been my personal observation. The ones who came from India to the West, all the ones I have ever encountered, were the most strict of all regarding such matters as karmic foods or vegetarianism.

Yes, there are other matters of concern, and not just karmic foods, I agree. But being this is the discussion, I was thinking of that specifically.

Again, perhaps an explanation for this has to do with sheer numbers and math, which I think you misunderstood a thought of mine. There is no doubt there are more vegans in India than in the West, this is why those who turn to the truth know India as Mother as well. We all know India is the Mother of all “Religion” meaning SD and Hinduism. She, in Herself, is a Devi, even the rivers and mountains are. My Lord Mahadeva has His Eternal City Kashi in India (physically, but spiritually there is much more to the truth than that, of course). So there is no question about that.

But in sheer numbers, probably simply do to the large population, there are also a very large number of souls living in India who partake karmic foods. Probably not as many in sheer numbers as the West, but it would not surprise me if it approximates the numbers by half or more. Which is a large number.
I am concerned also, in a trend to eat beef and pork in some cases among Indians. There are many reasons for that, I may not be articulate enough to understand or pinpoint why this is so. But I do see it, in some cases it is shocking.

So it is better if we can all trend the other way if possible, to be more aligned with the values you represent, for you are an outstanding example of that.
Because you are an outstanding example of that, please do not be afraid in front of others to let it be known your values, even if in front of “Westerners”. I am not saying you are afraid. I understand you want to protect what is best. I understand you do not want to associate with those who may be a danger to your values, or influence those around you whom you love in a negative way. But, in the example of the work environment, where I work those such as myself make it very, very clear regarding such matters (such as when the company orders food for employees) that there are societal and cultural consequences to being ignorant of others principles, and in fact where I work and in almost all companies I know of today in the US they have listened to us and in fact have enormous concern for their status among the community they reside and the values of those who are their employees and community and assets to the community. So they account for all, this is in fact the standard today and those who are in a position to dictate over others and do not account for such (for example to provide pure vegan food with no contamination from shared cooking utensils) they are terminated from employment. So this is what I mean about not being afraid. Always let it be known your situation, you will be respected for that.

Maybe I am naive, but I think my “ex-smoker” analogy has some merit. Is it better that such values grow, or become hidden within the world? I think it is better they grow. When I gave this example, I had in mind among the West those who are the most vocal about such matters are like “ex-smokers”, they once ate beef for example but now are strongly against it on all fronts. They have no fear. They express why they will not eat beef. They are open about it, not hidden. If confronted with beef, they will clearly say NO, and in front of everyone, and give reasons. Those who hear the reasons benefit. They do not hide. They won’t, since it is in their nature. In fact, sometimes, like the “ex-smoker”, go overboard a bit because they often hate the very idea of doing such a karmic act. Yes, not all are Hindus. But it is better that we grow, and not contract.

Principles of Dharma should not be compromised, and never to appear friendly or inclusive. My observation is, when this happens in the West, it is among Indians (born in India) who come to the West who do this, not teachers or Gurus or those in authority to represent Hinduism – my observation has been such Endowed Authorities are even more strict than in India regarding foot habit and such. In India, the teachers are Endowed, but in the few examples where perhaps they are “bending” things typically they seem to be India centric in location and not Western facing. Again, this may only be because of the sheer numbers involved in India and so it is more of a mathematical anomaly if anything else.

But in regards to hate, and simply in regards to the hope that the world becomes more aligned with the endowed values you have, I do not think the attitude such as “I hate all you mleechas, in fact so much so that why don’t you just also eat your pet parrot in addition to the cow!” … I am not saying you say that, but some have sort of that mindset. This may not be very beneficial on approach. They actually want what is already a bad situation to become worse. They actually WANT them to also start eating their “pet dog”. What good would that do? What good is it to make matters worse? Because, the problem is, if matters are made even worse, do not think the bad will not be knocking at your door very soon and perhaps even one day threaten even your own good family. The path to your door is much shorter today, in this world, than it was in the past. Those who are your neighbors, they are everywhere now. I think perhaps even you live in the West, I am not sure. By your good example in life and in public example, you set an example we can admire. And you will be admired, just see! Yes, we are in the Kali Yuga. That is why we value those such as yourself so much. Do not leave us totally alone.

In the next day I will be at a wedding. People from India, Canada, US, UK, Australia will all be there. Amazingly, this wedding is a Hindu wedding – amazing in the sense of the state of the world today. I am not saying things are getting better, in many ways things are getting worse. But there are many good signs, too.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Didn't read the whole thread, but I had a though on an analogy for giving up meat, for those who say it's difficult. I've been blessed with both giving up meant and giving up cigarettes. Of the two, giving up meat is 100 times easier, because you can still EAT. As for giving up cigarettes, it would be like giving up food. Becoming a vegetarian compared top a smoker, is a s simple as switching tobacco brands.

Aum Namasivaya

[Guiding Thoughts]

Eating Meat is a matter of choice. Here's a link to a post on The Guiding Thoughts Blog , where Swami Vivekananda speaks on this subject. Its an interesting excerpt and worth a read.

http://guidingthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/10/swami-vivekananda-on-eating-meat-and.html

Being vegetarian is more humane and saving a "life" or allowing someone to live would be the greatest act of Karma. Aside of this viewpoint, the economics of growing cattle for food is increasingly becoming more expensive, as fodder gets more and more expensive. Over a period of coming years, sheer economics of living, will drive people to be vegetarian.

Best regards
Guiding Thoughts

[Bhagavankibhakt]

Namaste,

I strongly believe that food is divided amongst the 3 gunas.
Sattvik food is bland, sweet, fresh, clean and great for the body causing no harm to it like raw fruits and vegetables.
Rajasik food is spicy and sour and may either be fresh or at least 1 day old which causes the body some form of pain and discomfort. (I will admit my diet consists almost completely of these types of foods)
Tamasik food is unclean, close to spoiling, unhealthy to the body and causes the body harm and discomfort. Meats and alcohol falls under this category.

Meats are also very acidic to the body and takes approx. 21 days to vacate the body completely. Which means if you want to be a fully practicing Hindu before you perform any pujas you would have to fast for 21 days before you can do them.

I personally have no objection to people eating meats however being a practicing and devout Hindu means we have to keep our bodies as clean and as healthy as possible. This is why I became a vegetarian 5 1/2 years ago.

Regards,
Bhagavankibhakt