Is vegetarianism required?

[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".

[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