vegetarianism

[Ram]

Can you point to any Brahmana Rishi who is known for eating meat?

Yes, Sage Agastya. Haven't you heard of the story of Sage Agastya and Vatapi?

[Arjuna]

In fact the whole Vedic culture was centered upon animal-sacrifice. Consuming of sacrificial meat was essential part of ritual. Ashvamedha, agnishtoma etc — brahmanas necessarily ate meat, Rishis as well.
In Shaivagamas, Bhairavagamas and Kaulatantras sacrifices have their place.
Thus, ALL Shruti if in favor of sacrifices and meat eating (in ritual context).




edited by satay: Vedic culture is not a 'cult' I assume you were just trying to shorten the word to save time in typing.

[coolbodhi]

Yes, Sage Agastya. Haven't you heard of the story of Sage Agastya and Vatapi?

What is sage agastya and vatapi's story?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Arjuna,

Firstly, I defined two classes of Tantra (based on their relative concern for Ahimsa); and for want of any technical term I used the words “black” and “white”, which basically corresponds to the common understanding of Tantra that is intended for a sum total of greater good (i.e. “white”) and Tantra that is more selfish and concerned with only with individual benefit without the boundaries of Ahimsa (i.e. “black”). If you can supply more appropriate terminology, please do. But the actual categories do not require any scriptural back-up.

Ahimsa is “Not Harmful” or “Harmlessness”, and perhaps the intention is clarified when the definition is given in more positive terms ~ in which case, the best translation is “Love” (in its most general sense).

We are in agreement on the nature of sacrificial or ritual meat-eating and its position in Hindu traditions, although most people extend their vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism into all aspects of life and most non-vegetarians do not see their meat eating as anything sacred ~ they merely deny that there is any spiritual importance in one’s diet beyond staying physically strong and healthy.

“When a Kaulika eats meat it is a sacrifice to Brahman” ~ this does NOT mean that Kaulikas recommend that everyone should kill animals (or promote their slaughter) without thought and at every opportunity !

The Kashmiri Shaivas such as Abhinavagupta are considerably later than original Vedic traditions.

Meat has always been included in the diet of non-Brahmana Hindus, but until very recently the animals were always ritually killed and only on special occasions. And this is still ALWAYS the case in traditional Hindu villages throughout India. Only a few towns that are traditionally entirely Brahmana have restrictions on meat consumption.

Ascetics who live in the forest have always had the opportunity of hunting, but among Brahmana ascetics the vegetarian diet (not including special rituals) has always been preferred. And the most revered of ascetics have always been those who deliberately restrict their diet, particularly resorting only to roots, shoots, fruits, and particular (originally Indian) grains. Rice and wheat are commonly not allowed because both are too new-fangled and “foreign” to the most traditional of sage’s diet !

And ultimately only fruits are consumed, because only the fruits of plants are actually offered to us by those plants with the “intention” that we might eat them and spread their seeds. To include anything else in one’s diet must be tainted to some extent with the idea of theft of property that does not belong to us and which was actually being put to good use by its owner at the time !

Anyone who is recognized as a true “knower of Brahman” is known as a true Brahmana.

I have entered Sannyasa with the traditional Samskaras, and during that process I have gone from Shudra to Brahmana and back to “Shudra” again. All Sannyasins have gone beyond any notion of caste discrimination, and only the most superficial judgement would conclude that I was a “Mleccha”.

There are NO absolute restrictions on diet for anyone except Brahmanas. And what Jainism and Buddhism actually did was to spread the ancient Rishis ideal of general vegetarianism as a rule for the whole population. They did not “invent” the idea for themselves and then “contaminate” Vedic Dharma with the idea of Ahimsa as the ultimate ideal.

Aghoris are known for eating human flesh, but this is ONLY done in a ritual context, and most Aghoris would only actually do it once in their life (in their initiation). So just because Aghora says that one should eat human flesh, that certainly does not recommend that all spiritual aspirants should become regular cannibals !

[sarabhanga]

Vatapisudana (Agastya Muni) certainly devoured the Asura Vatapi (the “Ally of the Wind” ~ who is “wind-swelling” and “fermentation” personified). But that has no bearing on the debate of vegetarianism !

[Namo Narayana]

Vatapisudana (Agastya Muni) certainly devoured the Asura Vatapi (the “Ally of the Wind” ~ who is “wind-swelling” and “fermentation” personified). But that has no bearing on the debate of vegetarianism !

Because he devoured them in the form of a mango.

[Arjuna]

Namaste, Sarabhanga!

In fact, between us there is only little disagreement. I would rather say it is inessential.

The point i wanted to mention is the following:
In my view diet is in fact a matter of health only and not of spirituality (a matter of ayurveda and not Dharma). But intention with which one takes his food is a does matter much. If one is eating rice and vegs or even nourishes himself with pure air, but he get proud with “being spiritual, pure” etc, he poisons his own soul (and inevitably gets respective karma-phala). If one is eating meat or even leftovers with pure consciousness, no sin touches him. Ahimsa deals with one’s heart and intention (and actions in respect of other living beings), not with diet.
Also there is an hierarchy created by God, and a human has a right to use lower forms for his sustenance — but with balance and gratitude to Him. For some meat is necessary and good (in limited amounts) and for other it is not healthy — that depends on constitution of body, activities and climate. Even for health it is better to eat less (or none) meat, but more sea-food and fish.
This all is right for common people. There is an exception for those who follow particular achara and had got instructions from their guru. In that case rules are set by guru and Agamas. And siddhas and masters are free to select their way as they like.
yatra yatra gajo yAti tatra mArgo yathA bhavet.
kulayogI chared yatra sa sa mArgaH kuleshvari.. (Kularnava 9. 81)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

this topic, as you can imagine, is often discussed amongst Buddhists as well.

generally speaking, there are two operative views to be found, strictures which apply to the monastics and precepts which apply to the laiety.

within the context of the monastics, the consumption of flesh can only take place if a special set of circumstances are met, chiefly, that if the monk/nun know the flesh was prepared for their consumption, they are not permitted to partake.

if, however, a farmer had killed a wild boar and was selling the flesh in the market, a monk/nun could consume it if they so chose.

Buddha Shakyamuni, like many, many groups of spiritual beings, collected alms as the food for the day. in that scenario, he advised that food was like medicine and that we should take our medicine even if it tastes bad or seems incorrect.

for a layperson (like myself) the monastic strictures do not apply. so, technically, i could choose to consume flesh if i so chose.

that being said, i've been vegetarian for over 7 years now, not because my religious practice instructs me to be so but becuase of the realizations of my own practice and the inter-related nature of beings.

so, overall, i would say that this question, at least from the Buddhist point of view, is one which each being should decide for themselves predicated on their own realizations and capacities.

metta,

~v

[satay]

Also there is an hierarchy created by God, and a human has a right to use lower forms for his sustenance — but with balance and gratitude to Him.

namaste,
Who gave you this "right" to use lower forms?
Just curious.

Meat eating is avoided so that the mind and the heart can avoid unnecessary violence as much as possible but Hinduism recognizes that we kill millions of air borne living things every breath we take so the point is not of killing animals but of 'unnecessary' slaughtering them to please our senses.

satay

[Singhi Kaya]

I just had a small argument in the Audarya_fellowship forum with staunch vegetarians there. Few points, I will put them one after other

1. Non-Veg is not forbidden in Hinduism, certain sects are strict about it other's arent.
2. Veg is preferred because of sattavic nature of veg diet. Non-Veg is rajasic or tamasic (depending on how it is prepared). It is not suitable for some spiritual paths, but better not be judgemental about it.
3. Pinnacle of Hindu-Dharma is the Gita and it says attachement to any thing particular is cause of sorrow. So, I believe eat what is easily available and which suits you. Just refrain from beef as it harms our culture.
4. I have nothing for or against vegetarianism - as mentioned Veg diet is sattic and perhaves necessary for those seriously in the path of yoga. But there are some people who think eating non-veg is sinfull, it is ahimsa (btw, ahimsa<> nonkilling)and we will go to hell for eating meat. God has forbidden meat etc. I just want to say such ideas are anti-hindu. If you think like that then one of the abrahamic religions will suit you better.