Is vegetarianism required?

[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/Aborigi...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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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:

yaj�a-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ /
bhu�jate 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 /
j�ātvā 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 to track my progress.

Om Namah Shivaya