Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

  1. #1

    Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    This is a continuation of a response to the Swami Vivekananda thread when the subject diverted from there into the issue of vegetarianism. Sahasranama made some unwarranted criticisms of "medieval" Vaishnavas and suggested that they were somehow less authentic due to endorsing vegetarianism. I was ready to post this when the thread suddenly closed. I am therefore posting it here since I have tried analyze this issue with reference to explicit shAstric-pramANa-s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    I am sorry I stepped on your toes talking about Srivaishnavas.
    I don't have a problem with you "talking" about Sri Vaishnavas, or even about criticizing them, or any other Vaishnavas for that matter. However, it would be nice if you took the time to inform yourself of their actual views, instead of knocking down strawmen. It's easier to have an intelligent discussion when you base your arguments on factual data. So far as I can see, this whole tirade against Sri Vaishnavas has nothing to do with anything written by their acharyas, but is solely based on Viraja making comments about meat-eating and Hinduism, and being a Sri Vaishnava by birth.

    Seriously what are you going on about? Viraja made some statements about Srivaishnavas and I gave arguments why Srivaishnava custom is not always in line with Hinduism in general.
    Because your argument is illogical and self-serving. There is no "Hindu" custom that is "always in line with Hinduism in general," because "Hinduism" is a broad term encompassing many different, distinct, and contradictory traditions and world-views. As such, you could theoretically criticize any Hindu who prescribes any religious vow, moral principle, etc that some other Hindu does not follow. But so far as I can see, you've only selectively applied the logic to "medieval" Vedantins, Vaishnavas, and post-18th-century Neo-Hindus.

    In a previous posting, you argued that Sri Vaishnava brahmins are far-removed from the ancient priests who sacrificed animals, as if the desire to participate in such a practice is somehow a marker of authenticity. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are referring only to authentic Vedic yagnas performed only by authentic brahmins. Still, your argument is not well founded in shAstra. In gItA 2.42-46, Sri Krishna criticizes the mentality of the fruitive ritualist who fails to understand the ultimate, transcendental purpose behind the Vedic sacrifices, and advises Arjuna to rise beyond the most superficial understanding of the Vedas as pertaining to the three guNa-s (trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna / nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
    niryoga-kṣema ātmavān //
    ). He then goes on to tell Arjuna "yāvān artha uda-pāne sarvataḥ samplutodake / tāvān sarveṣu vedeṣu brāhmaṇasya vijānataḥ//" - endorsing the view that a knower of the veda can understand their true purpose, just as a great body of water can serve the purpose of a smaller one. Every interpretation I have seen of 2.46 leads to the conclusion that not everything in the veda-s is meant for everyone, since some Vedic sacrifices have more materialistic ends in mind, and a true knower of the Veda knows which parts are to be followed by whom. Thus, it is not correct to argue that participation in animal-yagnas is a marker for Vedic authenticity.

    Moreover, the bhAgavata purANa describes the grisly fate that was to befall King Praachiinabarhishat who had performed animal sacrifices:

    nārada uvāca
    bhoḥ bhoḥ prajāpate rājan paśūn paśya tvayādhvare |
    saṁjāpitā jīva-saṅghān nirghṛṇena sahasraśaḥ || bhA 4.25.7 ||

    ete tvāṁ sampratīkṣante smaranto vaiśasaṁ tava |
    samparetam ayaḥ-kūṭaiś chindanty utthita-manyavaḥ || bhA 4.25.8 ||

    SB 4.25.7 — The great saint Nārada said: O ruler of the citizens, my dear King, please see in the sky those animals which you have sacrificed without compassion and without mercy in the sacrificial arena.
    SB 4.25.8 — All these animals are awaiting your death so that they can avenge the injuries you have inflicted upon them. After you die, they will angrily pierce your body with iron horns.


    It sounds to me like abstaining from animal sacrifices is perfectly in line with what at least some purANa-s teach, wouldn't you say? Didn't you also say that the itihAsa/purANa-s give us a picture of what "true Hindus" are supposed to believe in?

    Because on the subject of eating meat, there are plenty of negative references therein also. For example, in rAmAyaNa 1.30.15, rAma refers to the demons marIcha and subAhu as flesh-eaters (राक्षसान् पिशित अशनान् |). It is later stated that rAkShasa-s are addicted to meat-eating (rAmAyaNa 5.17.9-18, 6.60.63). In the same text (VR 2.75.38) Bharata mentions the sinful nature of nourishing people with meat:

    लाक्षया मधुमांसेन लोहेन च विषेण च |
    सदैव बिभृयाद्भृत्यान् यस्यार्योऽसुमते गतः || २-७५-३८

    38. (May he)yasya = with whose; anumate = counsel; aaryaH = my elder brother; gataH = has gone to exile; obtain sin) bibhR^iyaat = of nurturing; sadaiva = always; bhR^ityaan = one's wife; children; and other dependents; through sale; laakshhayaa = of lacquer; madhumaamsena = liquor; and flesh; lohena = iron; vishheNa = and poison.

    "May he with whose counsel my elder brother has gone to exile, obtain, tat= the sin of nurturing his wife children and other dependents through sale of lacquer, liquor, flesh, iron or poison."


    There is also another reference to the sinful nature of meat-eating in VR 7.65.27-28.

    The text also mentions the impurity of blood/flesh:

    व्रते मे बहुशः चीर्णे समाप्त्याम् राक्षसाविमौ |
    मारीचः च सुबाहुः च वीर्यवन्तौ सुशिक्षितौ || १-१९-५
    तौ मांस रुधिर ओघेण वेदिम् ताम् अभ्यवर्षताम् |

    5, 6a. bahushaH chiirNe me vraate = almost, completed, in my, ritual; samaaptyaam = at its completion, near end; viiryavantau = valiant ones; su sikshitau = well, trained ones; raakshasaa = demons; maariichaH cha = Mareecha, and; subaahuH cha = Subaahu, also; tau = they two; maamsa rudhira ogheNa = with meat, blood, streams; taam vedim vimau = that, Altar of Fire, from sky; abhya varSataamoverall = they rain [they drench.]

    "At the near end of almost completed ritual of mine two valiant and well-trained demons, namely Mareecha and Subaahu, are drenching the Altar of Fire with streams of meat and blood, from the sky. [1-19-5, 6a]

    अवधूते तथा भूते तस्मिन् नियम निश्चये || १-१९-६
    कृत श्रमो निरुत्साहः तस्मात् देशात् अपाक्रमे |

    6b, 7a. tasmin niyama nishchaye = that, ritual, vow; avadhuute = upheaved - ravaged; tathaa bhuute = thus, on becoming; kR^ita shramaH = I who made, an exertion of myself; nir utsaahaH = [am becoming] without, enthusiasm - unenthusiastic; tasmaat deshaat apaakrame = from that, place, departing from.

    "When the ritual vow is thus ravaged I, as the one who exerted myself for the ritual, had to depart from that place, unenthusiastically. [1-19-6n, 7a]


    Does this make sense to you, so far, Sahasranama? Vishvamitra is complaining that the demons pollute his sacrifice with meat and blood, and you are arguing that no Hindu should have any problem at all with meat.

    The varAha purANa 203.12-13 describes punishments for people who sell meat.

    The bhAgavata purANa elsewhere condemns the practice of killing animals:

    hanyante paśavo yatra nirdayair ajitātmabhiḥ |
    manyamānair imaṁ deham ajarāmṛtyu naśvaram || bhA 10.10.9 ||

    evaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ deham avyakta-prabhavāpyayam |
    ko vidvān ātmasāt kṛtvā hanti jantūn ṛte ’sataḥ || bhA 10.10.12 ||


    and

    dravya-yajair yakṣyamāṇaṁ dṛṣṭvā bhūtāni bibhyati |
    eṣa mākaruṇo hanyād ataj-jo hy asu-tṛp dhruvam || bhA 7.15.10 ||

    Upon seeing the person engaged in performing the sacrifice, animals meant to be sacrificed are extremely afraid, thinking, “This merciless performer of sacrifices, being ignorant of the purpose of sacrifice and being most satisfied by killing others, will surely kill us.”


    Moreover, the same bhAgavatam states that animal-sacrifices are meant to regulate the killing, not encourage more of it:

    tīrtheṣu pratidṛṣṭeṣu rājā medhyān paśūn vane |
    yāvad-artham alaṁ lubdho hanyād iti niyamyate || bhA 4.26.6 ||

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


    So far, it seems to me that discouraging meat-eating is well within the realm of acceptable practice for those following itihAsa/purANa, wouldn't you say?

    Do you criticize non-vegetarian Hindus who advocate freedom to eat meat as aggressively as you criticize "sectarian" and "medieval" Vaishnava groups who advocate vegetarianism? Because you held the itihAsa/purANa as the standard of "true Hinduism," and I have clearly shown you the unequivocal basis therein for discouraging meat-eating.

    First of all, I have no disdain for Srivaishnavas. What I am talking about here are the south Indian Vedanta schools which were started by south Indian village brahmins (Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva) and have become overrated as benchmarks to measure traditional Hinduism, especially on this forum.
    Right, nothing disdainful at all about that comment.

    An unbiased reader will come to a different conclusion than someone who has sectarian predisposition.
    And what sect would that be? I told you before that I was born a smArtha and that I continue to study different points of view within Hinduism. From whence comes this hubris that your view is the non-sectarian one? I gave you the logic for interpreting the rAmAyaNa references in a vegetarian sense, and also gave supporting evidence from two other purANa-s which you claimed to accept as authoritative. It seems to me, as before, that your remarks are motivated by sectarianism rather than by balanced, level-headed thinking.

    Again your logic fails. To make a statements being appalled by meat eating, means you are appalled by all meat eaters in general.
    It actually does not, since the veda-s do allow for meat-eating within the context of yagna.

    Preaching the merits of vegetarianism is one thing, saying that meat eating is non-Hindu is another.
    Sahasranama, if you can come up with the explicit words and name of the "medieval" acharya who has written that meat-eating is "non-Hindu," then I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?

    Gandhi's napunsakata caused more harm than was spared with his pseudo non violence. If the passive aggressive "non violence" of one person causes the harm of thousands of innocent Hindus, that non violent person needs to be taken care of.
    For a person who trumpets his views as "Hindu," you endorse some violent and unforgiving atittudes that are very "non-Hindu," as per the standard (of fidelity to itihAsa/purANa) that you have given.

    The bhAgavata purANa 8.7.44 equates the bearing of another's suffering with worship of Lord Vishnu. It states that only the compassionate can attain Vaikuntha (4.12.36-37), and prescribes an attitude of compassion for all living entities (3.29.21, 3.29.34) as does the viShNu purANa 3.8.35-37. The rAmAyaNa 2.116.8 describes compassion as the highest virtue and again prescribes compassion even for the greatest of sinners (6.113.43-46). These later shlokas were spoken by sItA-devI in regards to rAvaNa and his minions. No one doubts the evil of rAvaNa, or the terrible ways in which he terrorized sItA. Nevertheless, this noble lady said:


    पापानां वा शुभानां वा वधार्हाणां प्लवङ्गम ||६-११३-४६
    कार्यं कारुण्यमार्येण न कश्चिन्नापराध्यति |

    46. kaaruNyam = kindness; kaaryam = is to be shown; aaryeNa = by a noble person; paapaanaam vaa = either towards a sinner; shubhaanaam vaa = or a virtuous person; athaapivaa = or even; vadhaarhaaNaam = to person deserving to be killed; na kashchit = (for) There is none; naaparaadhyati iti na = who never commits a wrong.

    "Kindness is to be shown by a noble person either towards a sinner or to a virtuous person or even to a person who deserves death, for, there is none who never commits a wrong."

    लोकहिंसाविहाराणां रक्षसां कामरूपिणम् ||६-११३-४७
    कुर्वतामपि पापानि नैव कार्यमशोभनम् |

    47. ashobhanam = evil; kaaryam = act; na kaaryam = is not to be done; paapani kurvataamapi = even to those who do evil-deeds; loka himsaavihaaraaNaam = in taking pleasure to harm people; kruuraaNaam = the cruel ones; paapakarmaNaam = who do evil deeds.

    "No evil is to be done, even to those cruel persons of sinful deeds, who take pleasure to harm the life of others and continue to perpetrate their sinful acts."


    These verses are very clear, and they preclude the cheering on of another person's execution, no matter how misguided that person was.

    I don't care for Gandhi's politics or his philosophy, but if the itihAsa/purANa is truly the authority on "Hinduism" as you claim, then your attitudes about endorsing Gandhi's execution are very un-Hindu to say the least.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Post Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Praṇām,

    I'm not sure if Sahasranāma mentioned this in his post, but there is a part in the Ayodhyā-Kāṇḍam of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇam in which Sītā Mātā mentions the use of meat and alcoholic drinks to worship Gaṅgā:

    सुराघटसहस्रेण माम्सभूतोदनेन च।
    यक्ष्ये त्वाम् प्रयता देवि पुरीम् पुनरुपागता॥२-५२-८९॥

    Transliteration:
    surāghaṭasahasreṇa māmsabhūtodanena ca।
    yakṣye tvām prayatā devi purīm punarupāgatā॥2-52-89॥

    My attempted Translation:

    With one thousand (sahasreṇa) ritually pure (prayatā) pots (ghaṭa) of alcoholic drinks (surā) and (ca) rice dishes (bhūtodanena) with flesh/meat (māmsa), I shall worship/honor (yakṣye) you (tvām) again (punar), Goddess (devi), upon approaching/arriving (upāgatā) at the city (purīm).

    [1] Surā (as I'm sure you'll point out) can also refer to water, but usually refers to either wine or liquor.

    [2] Sītā seems to be referring to Devī Gaṅgā, based on verse 85, in which she states "yakṣye pramuditā gange sarva kāma samṛddhaye" (I shall happily worship you, O Gaṅgā, the completer/fullfiller of all my wishes).

    I'm not here to agree or disagree with either you or Sahasranāma. I myself am vegetarian, and although I certainly don't like morally judging others regarding meat consumption, I don't find it wrong if others recommend vegetarianism. I'm solely pointing out this verse since you two seemed to have been talking about meat eating in regards to the Rāmāyaṇam.

    Jai Śrī Kṛṣṇa
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  3. #3
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Your posts if filled with strawman's and ad hominems. I have no interest in indulging you. I know you have nothing better to do than argue endlessly on the Internet. You are obviously trying to pick a fight with me mixing things I have said to Viraja, Ganeshprasad and others in different contexts.

    And what sect would that be? I told you before that I was born a smArtha and that I continue to study different points of view within Hinduism. From whence comes this hubris that your view is the non-sectarian one? I gave you the logic for interpreting the rAmAyaNa references in a vegetarian sense, and also gave supporting evidence from two other purANa-s which you claimed to accept as authoritative. It seems to me, as before, that your remarks are motivated by sectarianism rather than by balanced, level-headed thinking.
    You posted some revisionist translation, because it supported your preconceived notion about Rama being vegetarian. You even named the Shiromani commentary to pretend it supported your stance. This shows you just enjoy arguing about things you have no knowledge about. The shiromani is very clear that Rama consumed mriga mamsa. You are welcome to believe that mriga mamsa means some fruit or root vegetable like you tried to argue.

    So far, it seems to me that discouraging meat-eating is well within the realm of acceptable practice for those following itihAsa/purANa, wouldn't you say?
    Like I said in the other thread, the shashtras do not unquivocally support meat eating. You failed to quote that part of my post, because it already answered the question and you would not be able to elicit another response to argue against. Meat eating is prescribed at some places and discouraged at others. I can quote three times as much material from the Vedas, itihasas, puranas and dharma shastras where meat eating is prescribed and even encouraged and I can also quote enough places where it is discouraged.

    None of this gives us the right to say that millions of Hindus who do eat meat are not Hindus or that anyone who converts to Hinduism absolutely has to give up meat eating or to have a strong disdain against all meat meaters or like Viraja said that Rama must have suffered from his bad karma, because he ate meat.

    Sahasranama, if you can come up with the explicit words and name of the "medieval" acharya who has written that meat-eating is "non-Hindu," then I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?
    Typical strawman argument, I was talking about Viraja and some other vaishnavas I have talked to, not about any medieval acharya. I get it you enjoy online debates and you like to misrepresent people's views to elicit reactions on which you can post another five pages of argument. Everyone has their hobbies.

    These verses are very clear, and they preclude the cheering on of another person's execution, no matter how misguided that person was.

    I don't care for Gandhi's politics or his philosophy, but if the itihAsa/purANa is truly the authority on "Hinduism" as you claim, then your attitudes about endorsing Gandhi's execution are very un-Hindu to say the least.
    Please tell Arjuna that him fighting the Mahabharata war was violently un-Hindu, you joker.

    Btw. I have something called a live which I have to attend to, so you can continue to indulge in this useless debate with yourself.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 04 August 2013 at 09:41 AM.

  4. #4

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Your posts if filled with strawman's and ad hominems. I have no interest in indulging you. I know you have nothing better to do than argue endlessly on the Internet. You are obviously trying to pick a fight with me mixing things I have saidto Viraja, Ganeshprasad and others in different contexes.
    Pranams,

    It seems you may be having some problems with memory recall. It was you who picked the fight, by using Viraja's comments to make a case against "sectarian Vaishnavas" and "sectarian medieval" commentators. If you were truly focused on Viraja and GP's comments, you would have stopped there. Why involve "sectarian Vaishnavas" and start making derisive comments about their authority? If you are not going to stand by your claims, the least you could do is retract them.

    You posted some revisionist translation, because it supported your preconceived notion about Rama being vegetarian.
    I posted the Gita Press translation, hardly a "revisionist" work, along with some translations at www.valmikiramayan.net. I explained the logic of the Gita Press translator in translating "mRga" and other terms in alternate ways to bring rAma's behavior in line with His stated intentions, viz, of living off of fruits, roots, and bulbs while in exile, especially as He is repeatedly depicted in the text as one who never utters a falsehood. I quoted supporting evidence from the rAmAyaNa describing meat as impure, as something which rAkShasa-s are addicted to, and which was used to pollute Vishvaamitra's yagna. I suppose we won't be discussing any of that, in spite of your prior claims that "true Hinduism" is found in the itihAsa/purANa.

    And just FYI, I did not have a "preconceived notion" about Rama's diet prior to reading the text. I really did not know one way or another until I read the entire text. You are making a lot of baseless assumptions about me which is certainly not bolstering your argument.

    You even named the Shiromani commentary to pretend it supported your stance. This shows you just enjoy arguing about things you have no knowledge about. The shiromani is very clear that Rama consumed mriga mamsa. You are welcome to believe that mriga mamsa means some root vegetable like you tried to argue.
    I said that the Gita Press translator named the Shiromani commentator. I am unclear on whether he was following Shiromani entirely or just in some contexts.

    You are certainly welcome to believe that Lord Raama ate the same kind of food as rAkShasa-s, in spite of His stated word that He would live off of fruits, roots, and bulbs.

    I'm glad that you seem to have access to an unabridged edition of the Shiromani commentary. Would you care to share the publication info, so that I can add it to my library?

    Like I said in the other thread, the shashtras do not unquivocally support meat eating. You failed to quote that part of my post, because it already answered the question and you would not be able to elicit another response to argue against. Meat eating is prescribed at some places and discouraged at others. I can quote three times as much material from the Vedas, itihasas, puranas and dharma shastras where meat eating is prescribed and even encouraged and I can also quote enough places where it is discouraged.
    Once again, I have given plenty of evidence substantiating the scriptural basis of vegetarianism, and that too from shAstra-s which you claim are authentic. I never claimed that meat-eating was not possible in some contexts. The evidence clearly shows that vegetarianism is the ideal, and you have not contested any of that. That being said, it is perfectly legitimate to preach vegetarianism and still be an authentic "Hindu" by the definition you gave, and there was thus no reason for you to take the followers of Shankara, Ramanaja, and Madhva to task on this point.

    So far as I can see, you just used Viraja's comments about meat-eating and Hinduism to indulge in a tirade against Sri Vaishnavas. While her comments may not have been well-worded (using as they did, the vaguely defined, broad concept "Hinduism") the sentiment was nevertheless a correct one. Vegetarianism should be followed, and meat-eating is at best an exception to the rule. That animals were sacrificed in grand yagnas, or consumed by forest-dwellers who lived outside civilization, is not an excuse for a Hindu to go to KFC and eat chicken for lunch. Of note, since we are talking about smRiti, you may be aware that the very first shloka was uttered when vALmIki cursed a hunter for killing a bird.


    तस्य अभ्याशे तु मिथुनम् चरन्तम् अनपायिनम् |
    ददर्श भगवान् तत्र क्रौङ्चयोः चारु निस्वनम् || १-२-९

    9. bhagavaan = godly sage; tatra = there; tasya abhyaase tu = in its [in foreshore's,] vicinity, but; an apaayinam = not, leaving one another [or, not fearing any danger]; charantam = moving about, flying there about; chaaru nisvanam = charmingly, calling; krounchayoH = two krouncha birds [ a lovely birds, not herons]; midhunam = a couple; dadarsha = he saw.

    There godly sage Valmiki saw a couple of lovely krouncha birds, in the vicinity of that river's foreshore, flying there about in togetherness, [and of course, fearless of any calamity,] and calling charmingly [1-2-9]

    तस्मात् तु मिथुनात् एकम् पुमांसम् पाप निश्चयः |
    जघान वैरनिलयो निषादः तस्य पश्यतः || १-२-१०

    10. papa nischayaH = evil, in intent; vyra = enemy of; nilayaH = abode of birds and animals [foresters]; nishaadaH = a tribal hunter; tasmaat midhunaat tu = of them, but, of couple; ekam = one; pumaamsam = male one; tasya pasyataH = on his [Valmiki's,] while looking on; jaghaana = killed.

    A tribal hunter with all his evil intent, as he is an enemy of foresters, killed the male one of them the couple of birds, while Valmiki is looking on. [1-2-10]

    तम् शोणित परीताङ्गम् चेष्टमानम् महीतले |
    भार्या तु निहतम् दृष्ट्वा रुराव करुणाम् गिरम् || १-२-११
    वियुक्ता पतिना तेन द्विजेन सहचारिणा |
    ताम्र शीर्षेण मत्तेन पत्रिणा सहितेन वै | १-२-१२

    11-12. patinaa = with husband; saha chaariNa = along with, moving - together with husband; which husband is with; taamra siirSeNa = red, crested [hence, a proud male bird]; matten = lusty one; patriNaa = with good wings; sahitena = always has his heart for her; tena dvijena = from that, bird [male bird]; viyukata = separated; bhaarya tu = wife of, [female bird,] but; nihitam = slain; mahii tale = on ground, surface; ceSTamaanam = reeling; shoNita pariita angam = blood, covered, wings [or body]; tam dR^iSTva = him [male bird,] on seeing; karuNaam giram = with piteous, utterances; ru raava = lamented, made wailing sounds; vai = really.

    She who is ever together with her husband, a lusty male bird with flighty wings and with a prideful red crest, and one who always had a heart for her, but she is now separated from him, and gone is that togetherness; and she, on seeing her slain husband whose body is blood-soaked, and who is reeling on the ground in the anguish of pain, bewailed with piteous utterances. [1-2-11, 12]

    तथा विधिम् द्विजम् दृष्ट्वा निषादेन निपातितम् |
    ऋशेः धर्मात्मानः तस्य कारुण्यम् समपद्यत || १-२-१३

    13. tathaa vidhim = that, way; niSadena nipaatitam = by hunter, felled; dvijam dR^iSTvaa = at bird, on seeing; dharma aatmaanaH = for that kind, hearted one; tasya R^isheH = to that, sage; kaaruNyam samapadyata = compassion, occasioned.

    On seeing at that bird felled that way by the tribal hunter, compassion is aroused in that kind-hearted sage Valmiki. [1-2-13]

    ततः करुण वेदित्वात् अधर्मो अयम् इति द्विजः |
    निशांय रुदतीम् क्रौन्चीम् इदम् वचनम् अब्रैइत् || १-२-१४

    14. tataH = then; dvijaH = sage Valmiki; rudatiim krounchiim nishaamya = wailing, female bird, on seeing; karuNa veditvaat = compassion, haunting him; ayam adharmaH iti = this is, unjust, thus thinking, thus apperceiving; idam vacanam abraiit = this, sentence, said, uttered.

    Then on seeing the wailing female krounchi bird, compassion haunting him and apperceiving the killing of male bird as unjust, the sage uttered this sentence... [1-2-14]

    मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठाम्त्व | मगमः शाश्वतीः समाः |
    यत् क्रौङ्च मिथुनात् एक | मवधीः काम मोहितम् || १-२-१५

    15. ama = oh, ill-fate one; niSaada = oh, hunter; tvam = you; yat = by which reason; krau~Ncha mithunaat = of krouncha, couple; ekam = one; kaama mohitam = in lustful, indulged in; avadhiiH = killed; [tat = by that reason]; shaashvatiiH = ever lasting; samaaH = ages to come; pratiSThaam tu = reputation, but; maa gamaH = don't, get.

    "Oh! Ill-fated Hunter, by which reason you have killed one male bird of the couple, when it is in its lustful passion, thereby you will get an ever-lasting reputation for ages to come..." [1-2-15]


    That's not exactly unequivocal support for meat-eating as an alternate lifestyle option with equal moral foundation as vegetarianism.

    If the author of the rAmAyaNa can acknowledge the cruelty that is done to animals because of a desire for their meat, then you can certainly acknowledge the legitimacy of protesting against non-vegetarianism in an entirely "Hindu" context. This is not the same thing as saying that non-vegetarians are not "Hindu," since "Hindu" is such a broad concept that it can include almost anyone. However, it is clear that dharma generally supports vegetarianism. On this note, we have the following from manu-dharma-shAstra:

    He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. [v.5.46.]
    He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on. [v.5.47.]
    Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat. [v.5.48.]
    Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh. [v.5.49.]


    These verses are quite clear that vegetarianism is the ideal. This is especially significant considering the context, in which the virtues of animal sacrifices are mentioned and in which prohibited and permitted meats are explicitly discussed. After all that, Manu concludes with a prescription that people are better off avoiding meat. This is pretty clear and does not require interpretation. Incidentally, as you have argued that "true Hinduism" is based on the itihAsa/purANa, you should know that manu-dharma-shAstra is alluded to or sometimes explicitly mentioned in the bhAgavata purANa, viShNu purAna, and rAmAyaNa.

    None of this gives us the right to say that millions of Hindus who do eat meat are not Hindus or that anyone who converts to Hinduism absolutely has to give up meat eating or to have a strong disdain against all meat meaters or like Viraja said that Rama must have suffered from his bad karma, because he ate meat.
    Viraja says a lot of things that are not consistent with Sri Vaishnavism. You already know this, and it was disingenuous for you to use her remarks to make a case against Sri Vaishnavism. "Hindu" is a broad term without explicit definition, and one can say whatever one wants about. Historically this has been the case even on this very forum, especially on numerous issues which you don't always object to as strongly as you objected to the vegetarian argument. As far as "millions of Hindus who do eat meat" are concerned, I don't see millions of Vedic animal-sacrifices being performed to provide them with said meat. Thus, I would agree in spirit with Viraja that those Hindus are indulging in adharma. Once again, here is what Manu says on this subject:


    The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas. [v.5.31.]
    He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others. [v.5.32.]
    A twice-born man who knows the law, must not eat meat except in conformity with the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his (victims). [v.5.33.]
    After death the guilt of one who slays deer for gain is not as (great) as that of him who eats meat for no (sacred) purpose. [v.5.34.]
    But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences. [v.5.35.]
    A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts. [v.5.36.]
    If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. [v.5.37.]
    As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it
    without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births
    . [v.5.38.] Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word). [v.5.39.]
    Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences. [v.5.40.]
    On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed. [v.5.41.]
    A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state. [v.5.42.]


    Once again, the verses are quite clear. Meat-eating according to shAstric regulation only, i.e. from yagna. This is quite inapplicable to "millions of Hindus who eat meat," and thus Viraja is quite correct to call their adharmic behavior into question.

    Will you join with me and acknowledge that the taking of meat outside of the shAstric injunction is indeed sinful and to be given up?

    Please tell Arjuna that him fighting the Mahabharata war was violently un-Hindu, you joker.
    Arjuna was an honorable warrior with divine weapons who fought his battles against qualified opponents head-on, using peerless skills at archery. This bears no resemblance to a coward with a gun shooting an old, weakened, and unarmed man at point-blank range.

    Once again, sItA-devI's instruction (rAmAyaNa 6.113.46-47) is that one should not wish evil upon another being, no matter how evil he/she/it may be. This was spoken in the context of Hanumaan asking her if he could destroy all the rAkShasI-s in ashoka-vana who had tormented her at rAvaNa's command. If such a noble lady, in spite of being terrorized by such creatures for 10 months, could practice and prescribe forbearance and compassion, we both can, too. This is not applicable to a kShatriya fighting a war to uphold dharma, since killing of soldiers on a battlefield is not evil and is a far cry from mob violence or politically-motivated executions.

    Btw. I have something called a live which I have to attend to, so you can continue to indulge in this useless debate with yourself.
    best wishes with that,
    Last edited by philosoraptor; 04 August 2013 at 10:58 AM.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #5
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    43
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    601

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    All excellent quotes from Shastras, Phil. Ignoring people's confusing stances, I think this thread can be used to elucidate the position of Sri Vaishnavas on meat eating. Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

    Every Sri Vaishnava scholar acknowledges the existence of our non-vegetarian ancestors. But they see the Shastras distinguish between sanctified meat - those a/c to Vedic injunctions and unsanctified meat - unregulated indulgence.

    The Vedas, often being described as being kinder than 1000 parents put together, gives way for spiritual evolution for people of different mindset. For those who are not inclined towards seeking Brahman, if they were not given a way for balanced pleasure then they would become truly lost and get worse. Knowing this, is encouraged also the lower ideals like - a person desiring to get wealthy should sacrifice a white animal to Vayu.

    One may ask - but why is Sage Vaishista participating in such Yagnas? Because if the great were to desist from encouraging all people to follow dharma a/c to their level, then they would become a cause of confusion by discouraging them. The Rakshasas were condemned due to over indulgence in meat which was unsanctified and unapproved (like humans etc).

    In this Yuga, the spirituality required to properly conduct a yagna to neutralize the karma from animal sacrifice to benefit both the consumer and the animal is missing and so is banned.


    Sri Vaishnavas, being interested in Moksha only, totally abstain from meat eating (even sanctified), onions, garlic etc. due to following absolute sattvic diet as directed in Bhagavad Gita. So, did the great sages of preivous yuga, who were interested in moksha.

    Eating meat in a restaurant today, that is unsanctified with animals suffering in slaughter houses is not the same as the meat of the previous yuga which was regulated, sanctified and after treating animals well, even though that wasn't sattvic either.

    To encourage Hindus to become vegetarian is not equivalent to saying that they are non Hindus or hating them. Such statements are meant to make them slowly come out of it instead of judging them or hating them. After all, we do not go about sharing our opinions with non Hindus.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    43
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    601

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    I posted the Gita Press translation, hardly a "revisionist" work, along with some translations at www.valmikiramayan.net. I explained the logic of the Gita Press translator in translating "mRga" ............
    Was this a part of the other thread? If so can you post the translation here again? Thanks.

  7. #7

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Pranams jignyAsu,

    I thank you for your kind words. However, I would hesitate to offer any correction as I am not a Sri Vaishnava and cannot claim to speak in any official capacity for the sampradAya. For that matter, I don't know if there is an official Sri Vaishnava position on these matters. Frankly speaking, most Sri Vaishnavas whom I have met seem quite content to discuss philosophy and Hari-katha. For them, adherence to basic, human dharma is a given, and civilized people don't have to be lectured on refraining from demonic behavior.

    That being said, I want to point out that Sahasranama is quite mistaken in his view that Sri Vaishnavas are somehow ashamed of their Lord engaging in rAsa-LILA or (allegedly) eating meat. First, I know of no Sri Vaishnava scholar who has any problem with rAsa-LILA or Sri Krishna's dancing with "other people's" wives. For them, this is a divine display of bhakti which transcends corporeal limitations, and that view follows directly from shukadeva's comments in the bhAgavata purANa, 10th skanda. Andal, who is revered throughout the Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya, has also been said to worship the Lord in that mood. So, no real issues there.

    Furthermore, I know of at least one Sri Vaishnava who does seem to believe that Raama ate meat during His forest exile, and this is H.H. Chinnajeeyar Swami. I recall him acknowledging this on an email list when a disciple asked him about it, and I also recall him downplaying any relevance that might have to today's meat-eating culture. Now, I would not go so far as to say that Chinnajeeyar Swami's views represent all Sri Vaishnavas, but, I'm sure we can say that it's not inherently un-Vaishnava to subscribe to that view. As I've indicated, my main issue with it is that it seemed quite inconsistent with Raama's thrice-stated word that He would live off of roots, bulbs, and fruits.

    That meat-eating was allowed in a yagna is an indisputable fact, if we are going to take the itihAsa/purANa and dharma-shAstra-s as a guide. It is also indisputable that only certain kinds of meat were permitted for such sacrifices, and that consumption of meat outside of the regulations of shAstra is sinful. It is incorrect to say that the allowance for meat-eating represents a tolerance of shAstric Hinduism for the practice, or even a prescription. The bhAgavata purANa is quite clear in at least two instances that the allowance is for regulation of the habit, not for its encouragement. Incidentally, while manu-smRiti says that animals slain in sacrifice are not killed in the ordinary sense (being granted higher births as a result of the yagna), in the bhAgavata purANa, nArada tells prAchInabarhiShat mahArAja that the animals the latter had sacrificed were preparing to take vengeance upon him in his next life. Clearly, the rationale that the animal is being sacrificed in yagna was insufficient to guarantee no resulting sinful reaction. Something else had to be present, perhaps a standard or purity on the part of the performer, to guarantee the intended result. This may be why animal sacrifices are said to be forbidden in the kali-yuga (I don't remember the purANic reference off hand, but I definitely saw it several times, and it was quite clear on this point - I'll dig it up at some point if I can find it).

    It's becoming fashionable for some people to suggest that the ritualists who perform elaborate yagnas like animal-sacrifices are in some sense the more authentic Hindus, and that those who do not do them so much, i.e. "medieval Vedanta commentators" are somehow less of a "benchmark" for establishing what Hinduism (in the sense of vaidika dharma) is. It occurs to me that this pompous view is almost exactly what Sri Krishna criticized as that of the veda-vAda-ratAs (gItA 2.42), who are overly attached to the ritual form, while missing entirely their substance, placing greater emphasis as they do on the fruitive results of yagna and less on their esoteric, spiritual, brahman-centric aims.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  8. #8

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by jignyAsu View Post
    Was this a part of the other thread? If so can you post the translation here again? Thanks.
    It was part of the other thread. Unfortunately, the moderator deleted them. It will take time to rewrite them, time which I am not sure I have at present. The basic gist of his argument was that because Raama repeatedly said He would live off of fruits, bulbs, and roots in the forest, he was going to translate references to meat using secondary meanings. He gave one instance of a Sanskrit work in which "mRga" was used to refer to a type of pulp.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  9. #9
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    43
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    601

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    For that matter, I don't know if there is an official Sri Vaishnava position on these matters.
    Namaste Phil. You are quite right about this. I myself know a great Sri Vaishnava scholar who personally told me that he believes that Rama did consume meat and liqour. Sri Vellukudi Krishnan Swami says that Rama and Krishna were vegetarians. So, the camp is divided on the issue and the Poorvacharyas have been silent on this. In general they are not too bothered on the issue.

    However, I do think that someone reading our itihasa puranas needs to be equipped with some basics on this or lots of confusions can follow.


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    That being said, I want to point out that Sahasranama is quite mistaken in his view that Sri Vaishnavas are somehow ashamed of their Lord engaging in rAsa-LILA or (allegedly) eating meat.
    I am not sure on what his view actually is, but in general I would like to add that whole of India except for a few deviant like Agniveer have no problem but infact glorify His rAsa LILA.


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    As I've indicated, my main issue with it is that it seemed quite inconsistent with Raama's thrice-stated word that He would live off of roots, bulbs, and fruits.
    Yes, this is my view as well. Besides Hanuman describes Rama as one who never consumes meat or alcohol. Some say that He meant that Rama didn't consume it because of His seperation from Sita. But then He had already renounced everything but roots and fruits.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Incidentally, while manu-smRiti says that animals slain in sacrifice are not killed in the ordinary sense (being granted higher births as a result of the yagna), in the bhAgavata purANa, nArada tells prAchInabarhiShat mahArAja that the animals the latter had sacrificed were preparing to take vengeance upon him in his next life. Clearly, the rationale that the animal is being sacrificed in yagna was insufficient to guarantee no resulting sinful reaction. Something else had to be present, perhaps a standard or purity on the part of the performer, to guarantee the intended result. This may be why animal sacrifices are said to be forbidden in the kali-yuga (I don't remember the purANic reference off hand, but I definitely saw it several times, and it was quite clear on this point - I'll dig it up at some point if I can find it).
    Yes yes. There is some confusion around this for me as well and you have nicely put it here. I think in Manu smriti there's some verse saying that there's nothing wrong in one consuming (sanctified) meat but abstinence brings one great results or something. It does seem to be that the indication is if a Kshatriya and even Brahmana in worst case is unable to abstain from meat, let him atleast consume sanctified meat and minimize the impact.

    When confusion abounds, its fortunate when one has set his heart on a Guru Parampara.

    Thanks for your patient replies.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    43
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    601

    Re: Vegetarianism and Medieval Vedanta Traditions

    I would also like to present some views on related topic from Dr DA Joseph.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbqU0PUwxgc

    Dr DA Joseph is considered to be an authentic Sri Vaishnava by even many orthodox Sri Vaishnavas. He still retains the name because His Acharya ordered him so.

    Again, I would like to add that my only interest in the thread is to get Sri Vaishnava thoughts on this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •