Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

[Tikkun Olam]

As I understand there is no universally acceptable diet in Hinduism. Although I hear vegetarianism is common, it's not mandatory. Where did the vegetarian predilection start, and is it trying to become the dominant force? Do feel like the meat-eaters are doing it wrong? I can almost imagine the intra-religious arguments now.

The only thing I know you agree on is to not eat the cow. Is there a history behind why this one thing has uniquely become the apex of some sort of universally established dietary law? As per my brief rummaging around the internet, the earliest Hindus did eat beef, so there must have been a shift in mentality at some point.

[wundermonk]

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, if you believe YHWY/ALLAH made cattle for our consumption, I have no further argument with you except that it is inhuman and immoral to kill an animal regardless of what your Torah/Quran says to satisfy your taste buds. Kosher or Hallal slaughter is still slaughter and causes unbelieveable pain to the animals undergoing slaughter.

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

[devotee]

Namaste Tikkun,

As I understand there is no universally acceptable diet in Hinduism. Although I hear vegetarianism is common, it's not mandatory. Where did the vegetarian predilection start, and is it trying to become the dominant force? Do feel like the meat-eaters are doing it wrong? I can almost imagine the intra-religious arguments now.

The only thing I know you agree on is to not eat the cow. Is there a history behind why this one thing has uniquely become the apex of some sort of universally established dietary law? As per my brief rummaging around the internet, the earliest Hindus did eat beef, so there must have been a shift in mentality at some point.

Hinduism is widely different in comparison to any of the Abrahimic religions. It is erroneous to say it qualifies to be called as "ism" ... it is better known as "Sanatan Dharma" or the Eternal Way. It has under its umbrella various sects ... apparently contradictory philosophies and yet a very strong unifying force which binds all Hindus.

It is true that Hindus prefer vegetarian. This doesn't mean that most of the Hindus are vegetarian. I don't think so. However, Vegetarianism is considered a virtue by most of the Hindus. Many Hindus are dominantly vegetarian but also consume meat sometimes. Today's Hindu society has :

a) Predominant non-sectarian Hindus : They have dietary habits what they think is right for them. They are not under any vow or binding to follow a particular way of living. Most of these Hindus are highly influenced by Vaishnavism but they are not Vaishnavas in true sense. This makes a very high percentage of Hindus.

b) Vaishnavas : This is one of very dominant sects within Hindus. They are strict vegetarians (but milk, butter etc. comes under vegetarian categaory). They stay away from any meat/poultry products (they would not even touch them or eat on table where it is being eaten by someone else).

c) Shaivas : The Shaivas too are strict vegetarians just like the Vaishnavas.

d) ShAktas : These people are of two types. One who worships "Vaishno devi' & others who worship Goddess Durga/Kaali etc. These people are small in number comparatively. In fact, non-sectarian Hindus form a great chunk of behaving as ShAktas when they worship Mother Goddess. Those who worship Mother Goddess Vaishno Devi, they won't eat meat just like the Vaishnavas. The other ShAktas not only eat meat but also offer meat/fish/poultry products to Mother Goddess.

e) Aghoris : These people can eat anything ... even part of corpses from the burial ground. For them, everything is just another form of Lord Shiva ... and therefore, there is nothing to be abhorred.

f) The Advaita Vedantins , Yogis : These people are normally vegetarians as one of the precondition for the "eight-limbs" Yoga is to abjure violence towards all beings.

However, it is not only sects which decides the dietary habits of people as most of the Hindus are actually non-sectarian. It also depends upon their caste, regions to which they belong etc. e.g. the Brahmins normally don't eat meat. However, this is also not fully true as the Brahmins from West Bengal, Assam, Orissa and some parts of Bihar eat meat or if not meat then certainly fish. The Marwaaris from Rajasthan area are normally strict vegetarians & so are the Gujaraatis. The Tamil Brahmins are very strict vegetarians.

****************

As far as cow eating is concerned, it is a big NO-NO for almost all Hindus except certain very low castes which eat dead cows meat. How and when it all started can very well be only a matter of guess. The Rig Veda which is believed to be more than even ten thousand years old (passed on to generations in poetic form orally) does mention "Cow sacrifice" but people's opinion is very widely divided on whether it meant literally sacrificing cows or it has some symbolic meaning.

Today's status is that Cow is very very sacred to almost all HIndus. Eating beef by a Hindu is almost unthinkable.

OM

[Kumar_Das]

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

I didnt know what the rest of the post was about but the bolded definitely begged to have your hinds served on a platter.

Homo Sapiens have been practicing cannibalism for a long time up untill very recently. Several factors led to this practice being abandoned and eventually scorned.

Do you see people outside India all entirely practicing cannibalism? Or do you hear of anyone saying they feel at times compelled to eat human flesh just because they eat meat?

The main reason why Hindus avoid eating beef is simple and it is Hindu culture to view the providing of essential nourishment as milk produced by female as something maternal. Therefore since cows give milk, they are considered in the same sentiment. And also since the substances they produce, are used in yajna. End of story. All this equating to cannibalism is a little way off.

One could say that the chinks who feed on anything that moves are more likely to resort to cannibalism. But thats because they dont draw lines to what they put in their mouth(in their natural state).

Eating red meat isnt equivalent to eating human flesh. The most reasonable thing one can say is that it is a step closer compared to pure vegetarianism because its consumption of higher mammals. But this holds very weak a thrust in pushing the proximity between meat eating and cannibalism. As the only way this should be looked at is that, being pure vegetarian would mean that the purely vegetarian staple diet is an inhibiting factor preventing anything outside the norm. Its a matter of what one is used to and their perceptions of what they find acceptable and unacceptable. The pallet that is used to the taste of blood and flesh wont find it easier to resist the same of the human variety over someone who has been a pure vegetarian all their lives. But the ultimate factor defining one's propensity to consume human flesh imo is the emotional value.

At the end of the day, eating vegetables is also the taking of life, and karmically is still negative which is why extreme yogins and practitioners of tapas relied exclusively on sunlight, water and air.

The rational Brahmins decided, if one can cause less pain as possible with their choice of what they choose for sustenance it is all the better. Plus Ayurveda also showed that it was healthier.

However to say that eating animal meat is comparable to cannibalism is some convoluted sh*t. Its as preposterous as saying a grown man having sex with a woman is up on there with pedophillia because "youre sticking your... and they are both females".

I can imagine non-Hindus who have nothing against Hinduism reading trash like yours and developing antagonism towards us. Hence my lack of patience.

[Tikkun Olam]

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, if you believe YHWY/ALLAH made cattle for our consumption, I have no further argument with you except that it is inhuman and immoral to kill an animal regardless of what your Torah/Quran says to satisfy your taste buds. Kosher or Hallal slaughter is still slaughter and causes unbelieveable pain to the animals undergoing slaughter.

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

The morality issue is not so straight forward. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I believe humans and animals are the same. If you start to go down that path, than you could point out that animals evolved from plants, and come to the difficult conclusion that we shouldn't eat plants, either. There's clearly something more complex here.

Although we believe in physical forms being connected in some way, I would claim that humans are different from animals on the spiritual level just as animals are different from plants. This doesn't give us the right to abuse animals, but it doesn't mean eating them is the same as cannibalism.

For example, I think eating veal (which is basically a tortured baby cow) is immoral. There are indeed rules against animal cruelty in the Torah, such as letting a mother bird live if you take her eggs, and not eating the flesh of a live animal. The kosher slaughter is supposed to be painless, although you may argue that even killing something kindly is not so kind.

Anyway, I can infer from your post that vegetarianism is coming from a purely moral view. I'll not argue against that- people have different moral perspectives. Above, devotee said, "This doesn't mean that most of the Hindus are vegetarian. I don't think so. However, Vegetarianism is considered a virtue by most of the Hindus." So even a lot of Hindus will eat meat, at least sometimes.

The question I have is, why is this (even to a large extent, if not in total) culturally preferred?

Cultures all over the world eat meat. I believe there must have been a reason people started to agree eating animals was bad, and probably some sort of religious movement. Vegetarianism is the exception, not the rule.

(By the by, the rules in the Torah about which animals to eat say nothing about morals. It makes a distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals, and says that unclean animals are impure for you.)

[wundermonk]

In my post when I talked about those who believe in evolution, did I make a value judgement about morality/immorality? I did make a distinction but that was when I talked about those who DONT believe in evolution.

Homo Sapiens have been practicing cannibalism for a long time up untill very recently.

You just proved my point. If you are for eating meat then you may as well eat fellow humans.

I can imagine non-Hindus who have nothing against Hinduism reading trash like yours and developing antagonism towards us. Hence my lack of patience.

I dont really care about your patience or lack thereof. I also dont care about non-Hindus developing a perception of Hinduism based on my posts. This isnt any beauty contest. This is a message board and people are free to put forth their thoughts.

[devotee]

Anyway, I can infer from your post that vegetarianism is coming from a purely moral view.

No. It is deeper than that ! In most of the paths within Hinduism, it is believed that spiritual progress after a certain stage is impossible unless you take Ahimsa (abjure violence against all being by action, thoughts or words) and be a vegetarian.

The question I have is, why is this (even to a large extent, if not in total) culturally preferred?

Because of traditionally being against injury to any being i.e. Ahimsa being seen as important for spiritual progress. No particular timeframe can be established when this was accepted as Vedas/Vedanta are considered eternal and "apaurusheya" ( that which was always existent and that which has come as a revealation from God).

However, some of the important movements did give a thrust. Like the Bhakti Movement (14th to 17th century) which was predominantly Vaishnava & affected the Hindu society like nothing else. Before that, the Advaita-Vedanta movement & Buddhism too affected Hindu society towards becoming vegetarian. However, Ahimsa was one of the core principle within Hinduism right from the beginning ... it was prevalent in almost all sects but mostly within Yoga, Advaita & Shaivism, Vishnavism etc.

There is no Pope or Mullah dictating Hindus but the understanding is that "if you have spiritual aspirations, you must become vegetarian and adopt non-vilolence" at least after a certain stage.

OM

[Tikkun Olam]

No. It is deeper than that ! In most of the paths within Hinduism, it is believed that spiritual progress after a certain stage is impossible unless you take Ahimsa (abjure violence against all being by action, thoughts or words) and be a vegetarian.



Because of traditionally being against injury to any being i.e. Ahimsa being seen as important for spiritual progress. No particular timeframe can be established when this was accepted as Vedas/Vedanta are considered eternal and "apaurusheya" ( that which was always existent and that which has come as a revealation from God).

However, some of the important movements did give a thrust. Like the Bhakti Movement (14th to 17th century) which was predominantly Vaishnava & affected the Hindu society like nothing else. Before that, the Advaita-Vedanta movement & Buddhism too affected Hindu society towards becoming vegetarian. However, Ahimsa was one of the core principle within Hinduism right from the beginning ... it was prevalent in almost all sects but mostly within Yoga, Advaita & Shaivism, Vishnavism etc.

There is no Pope or Mullah dictating Hindus but the understanding is that "if you have spiritual aspirations, you must become vegetarian and adopt non-vilolence" at least after a certain stage.

OM

Then in that sense the Hindu sounds a lot like the Jew, actually. The only difference being you claim all animals are, for a lack of a better word, "impure" for you. We claim only certain animals (actually, most) are "impure".

[Kumar_Das]

I dont really care about your patience or lack thereof. I also dont care about non-Hindus developing a perception of Hinduism based on my posts.

For all we know you could be a non-Hindu yourself. I even I could be a non-Hindu myself. Therefore people need to ask themselves, why an abrahamic thread? Why an increase in members who profess abrahamic religions in our midst and why an increase in drawing of abrahamic religions to any given conservation and why increase of posts in defense of abrahamic religions and why increase of passiveness of Hindus when it comes to maintaining our religious dignity.

This isnt any beauty contest.

I didnt say it was about impressing people either. There are decent non-Hindus out there who might not be pro-abrahamic themselves and may have favourable opinions of Hindus. Trolls such as yourself don't represent my co-religionists and is something we will never say. Such irrationality and weak emotionalism does no good. And causes unnecessary antagonism directed towards Hindus. We are not out to impress. But we dont want to be out of our way to draw hate on us. Again troll-lol-logic.

This is a message board and people are free to put forth their thoughts.

When you say unreasonable and incendiary dribble. I will make sure I wont make your motive of tarnishing my religion easy.

[devotee]

Then in that sense the Hindu sounds a lot like the Jew, actually. The only difference being you claim all animals are, for a lack of a better word, "impure" for you. We claim only certain animals (actually, most) are "impure".

No. It is entirely different. It has nothing to do with being impure or pure. All beings are His manifestations alone. So, all beings are divine. It is related with the pain inflicted on the animals for getting meat from them. You have no right to inflict pain on any being whatsoever ... that is the idea behind not eating meat. If you kill an animal you ... the pain that an innocent being suffers accrues as bad karmas for you & becomes the cause of your sufferings which will manifest at the appropriate time either in this birth or in the births to come.

OM