As a Brahmin, is it wrong for me to try non veg?

[SAKALPAT]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Namaskaram.

Being a Brahmin has certain principles and thus if one wants to be a Brahmin he/she should follow such principles.

Eating non veg is one’s choice and wisdom should prevail what to choose.

After many decades gradually non-veg eating people are becoming vegetarians due to the great benefits it has to the mankind (regretting their indulgence in eating non-veg). Be it for Guna or for good health.

So, when we have a better option at our disposal to safeguard our virtues, why should we seek anything else. Hari Om!

 

[natkaushik]

Hello everyone, I am Eshwaran and just joined this community, there's something that I have always wanted to do but because of my beliefs I haven't been able to. I have a small urge to TRY non veg food just for me to be able to get a taste of it and have an experience. I follow Kanchi mahaperiyava's teaching, but will trying non veg make me be rejected by god? Is it wrong to just try for an experience?

I have wishes to god and everything is going smoothly and very thankful to that, but if I try non veg, will my prayers not be answered by god? Will he stop fulfilling my wishes? Will he forcefully take me to a path that will lead me to be a failure than the path he chose for me to be successful if I try non veg?

Please let me know, thank you.

Refer to the above book to know the brahmaṇa Dharma. Ask elders in your community.

 

[Iyest]

Jesus Christ ate fish.

Mohammed ate meat.

Sidhartha, a kshatriya who turned buddha, ate meat.

Vardhamana, a kshatriya who turned Mahaveera, ate meat.

Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya prior to becoming a brahma rishi, in all probability ate meat when he was king.

All the above people are now revered and venerated.

No TB now is a match for any of the above in divinity.

I wonder how meat eating would render one unholy and subject one to condemnation by God.

There is also a different view. Everything depends on interpretation and which version one finds acceptable.

1. Jesus ate meat. This has been translated into English. But the word means 'food'. So it is possible that translation could be the culprit here.

2. Buddha ate meat. Again the Buddha was following the dharma of a beggar/sanyasi when begging for food. That meant accepting any kind of food given to him without making demands. On occassions he ate meat when it was offered as alms, he never asked for meat.

3. Viswamitra. Don't know whether he continued to eat meat after becoming a rishi.

It is also possible that these people are revered not because they ate meat but in spite of it.

 

[v.s.rajamani]

Jesus Christ ate fish.

Mohammed ate meat.

Sidhartha, a kshatriya who turned buddha, ate meat.

Vardhamana, a kshatriya who turned Mahaveera, ate meat.

Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya prior to becoming a brahma rishi, in all probability ate meat when he was king.

All the above people are now revered and venerated.

No TB now is a match for any of the above in divinity.

I wonder how meat eating would render one unholy and subject one to condemnation by God.

It is not a question of Veg or Non Veg. The animals have a right to live just as human beings want to live. What right you (every human being) have to kill an animal and eat it just satiate your taste buds and hunger. Vallalar shed tears when he saw withering crops. Such were the people (saints) who lived in this country. From health point of view non veg is not good. This non vegers are responsible for the spread of many virus including Covid19. The present corona is a punishment to the mankind to realise his himsa philosophy towards animal. Mankind Love all including animals.

 

[eXe]

A very difficult question indeed. I am not sure if we even need to qualify the question with "as a Brahmin." If ethics are objective, why would it be ethical for 1 group or caste to do something but not so for another?

Assuming the question is about ethics.

There is a renowned adventurer by the name of Fiann Paul who eats only fish. His (and many other pescetarian's) ethical rationale is that fish are the only animals that they can kill with their own hands.

Slaughter is not pretty, if done with your own hands. I have done with fowl and jungle rat, and also carved wild boar. It makes you value the meat and food when you kill the animal with your own hands and see it suffering and die, or even to help cut part of the carcass. This modern disconnect between the actual killing of the animal and cellophane wrapped and sanitized meat on supermarket shelves is why most people, perhaps an entire generation or more has no respect for or understanding of where the food comes from.

If a society made it mandatory for all meat eaters to slaughter their own meat or interact with the animal's dead body in some way, I suspect that meat eating will decrease and become a lot more ecological overnight. Because human empathy is a real thing, and the foundation of all ethics and consideration for others.

My own life story is that I was raised in a typical Tamil Brahmin household and had never tasted any meat until I was 11 or 12 years old. I remember going to restaurants and ordering "veg biryani" or fried rice etc. while my friends would order chicken and mutton.

Fast forward to today and I am thoroughly deracinated and eat meat in nearly every meal. I have developed a rather Western palate with fondness for rich cuts of beef in particular. In my defense though I do live in the far east and (pre-pandemic) travel a lot, and also lift weights. I like to think that the restrictions on eating cow only apply to Desi or Indian cows. Of course, that would be sacrilege but nowhere in our scripture does it say anything about Wagyu or the cows in the pastures of New Zealand, Tasmania or Argentina. We have but only one known life after all and if you miss out on the flavor and eating experience of fine food, it is in a way a wasted life.

Organ meat is the most nutritious. If there is a true superfood in our world, it has to be organ meat- especially the liver of a healthy stress free animal.

 

[renuka]

A very difficult question indeed. I am not sure if we even need to qualify the question with "as a Brahmin." If ethics are objective, why would it be ethical for 1 group or caste to do something but not so for another?

Assuming the question is about ethics.

There is a renowned adventurer by the name of Fiann Paul who eats only fish. His (and many other pescetarian's) ethical rationale is that fish are the only animals that they can kill with their own hands.

Slaughter is not pretty, if done with your own hands. I have done with fowl and jungle rat, and also carved wild boar. It makes you value the meat and food when you kill the animal with your own hands and see it suffering and die, or even to help cut part of the carcass. This modern disconnect between the actual killing of the animal and cellophane wrapped and sanitized meat on supermarket shelves is why most people, perhaps an entire generation or more has no respect for or understanding of where the food comes from.

If a society made it mandatory for all meat eaters to slaughter their own meat or interact with the animal's dead body in some way, I suspect that meat eating will decrease and become a lot more ecological overnight. Because human empathy is a real thing, and the foundation of all ethics and consideration for others.

My own life story is that I was raised in a typical Tamil Brahmin household and had never tasted any meat until I was 11 or 12 years old. I remember going to restaurants and ordering "veg biryani" or fried rice etc. while my friends would order chicken and mutton.

Fast forward to today and I am thoroughly deracinated and eat meat in nearly every meal. I have developed a rather Western palate with fondness for rich cuts of beef in particular. In my defense though I do live in the far east and (pre-pandemic) travel a lot, and also lift weights. I like to think that the restrictions on eating cow only apply to Desi or Indian cows. Of course, that would be sacrilege but nowhere in our scripture does it say anything about Wagyu or the cows in the pastures of New Zealand, Tasmania or Argentina. We have but only one known life after all and if you miss out on the flavor and eating experience of fine food, it is in a way a wasted life.

Organ meat is the most nutritious. If there is a true superfood in our world, it has to be organ meat- especially the liver of a healthy stress free animal.

This is Desi Cow..That is Jersey Cow is only for the technical minded.
For the universal minded..all Bovines are one family.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Bovine Version.

 

[eXe]

This is Desi Cow..That is Jersey Cow is only for the technical minded.
For the universal minded..all Bovines are one family.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Bovine Version.

Yes, but the jurisdiction of the Manu Smriti ends at the borders of "Bharat." When our homeland has degenerated in quality so much that we are forced to emigrate and adopt of the ways of the Mlecchas, some habits will change with the times.

In any case, if I am to be reborn as a cow and to be be slaughtered for flesh, there are worse fates than the expensive cuts that I consume. These cattle breathe better air than I did for my entire life in India, roam in lush green pastures and in Japan are even given massages while classical music is played to soothe them.

To each his (or her) own, and we all make our own beds at the end of the day. None of us is free of sin and all morality is inherently imperfect.

 

[Mur61]

Jesus Christ ate fish.

Mohammed ate meat.

Sidhartha, a kshatriya who turned buddha, ate meat.

Vardhamana, a kshatriya who turned Mahaveera, ate meat.

Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya prior to becoming a brahma rishi, in all probability ate meat when he was king.

All the above people are now revered and venerated.

No TB now is a match for any of the above in divinity.

I wonder how meat eating would render one unholy and subject one to condemnation by God.

Jesus christ ate fish, because it was considered just a food but when he later spread the ethics of living , he turned to a vegetarian.
Mohammed ate meat till when he became a prohphet. Infact, he advocated vegetarianism and also told his disciples to ate meat only after it is purified (halal). He never stood in the path of the food habits of his followers.
Sidhartha a kshatriya who turned buddha ate meat till he realised the cruelty meted out in killing the poor animals. After that he never ate meat, fish etc.
Vardhamana who strongly advocated vegetarianism turned , before he was enlightened. He realised food habits form a hindrance towards achieving goals in spirituality. Hence he shunned meat,fish etc
Vishwamitra ate meat even when he was a king and also when he was a rishi, because during the former he had the affordability and while during the later, due to hunger and famine , there is on other food available he ate the meat of a dog.. All the time he cursed himself for resorting to this sort.
Finally , a word towards food .. Drinking Alcohol makes a man mad .. Eating Meat, Fish etc induces a man to the lower vices.. Not to say the least of those who are vegetarians but bad men.. Hence what ever you eat, surrender it to divine before consume , to make you commit less sin...

 

[renuka]

Yes, but the jurisdiction of the Manu Smriti ends at the borders of "Bharat." When our homeland has degenerated in quality so much that we are forced to emigrate and adopt of the ways of the Mlecchas, some habits will change with the times.

In any case, if I am to be reborn as a cow and to be be slaughtered for flesh, there are worse fates than the expensive cuts that I consume. These cattle breathe better air than I did for my entire life in India, roam in lush green pastures and in Japan are even given massages while classical music is played to soothe them.

To each his (or her) own, and we all make our own beds at the end of the day. None of us is free of sin and all morality is inherently imperfect.

Actually its fine is one wants to eat anything they like as long they state that its their desire and preference and leave the Shastras and smritis out of it and not try to justify their dietary choices on technical grounds.

There is a story of Mulla Nasaruddin who goes to a tailor to get a shirt stiched.
The tailor tells him it would be ready in 1 week If God Wills( Insha Allah).
Then when Mulla Nasaruddin goes to the tailor after 1 week again the tailor said..after 1 week God willing...again this dragged on and on..till Mulla Nasaruddin asked him.
" How long would you take if you leave God out of it?"

Likewise anyone can eat what they like and they should leave Shastras/Smirtis/Religion out of it.

Btw migrating to a different land doesnt force anyone to eat like the locals of the place.
Its optional.

 

[kgopalan]

What Will Happen if a Brahmin Eats Non-Vegetarian Food?*....
A question from my reader Amitabh Sharma: "Sir, I have seen lot of Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. What will happen if a Brahmin eats non-vegetarian?"

*"What do you expect to happen? Your stomach has power to digest both. And it is your false belief that Brahmin as a caste don't eat non-vegetarian"*

"Phew...I was relieved. Sir, I thought you were fanatic vegetarian...In fact, I am a Brahmin and have eaten non-veg...Still I can follow Brahmanism, right?"

*"Brahmanism has nothing to do with today's Brahmin caste. If you follow Brahmanism - that is Sattvik way of life - you have to be pure vegetarian."*

"I am confused..."
*"Our ancestors thrived to be a Brahmin...They knew that Brahmanism is divinely ordained cosmological order. They realized that a human can lead a perfect, peaceful and contented life if he followed Brahmanism...Hence everybody wanted to be Brahmins. They thrived to be one....*

*Sages like Vasishta, Viswamitra, Vyasa, Jambooka rishi, Shrunga muni, Valmiki, Agasthya, Gowtama etc were not born in Brahmin caste. But they gained ultimate knowledge (brahmajnana) and became Brahmins. Sant Namdev, Sant Ravidass, Sant Kabir and Guru Nanak were not caste Brahmins. Puttaparti Sai Baba, Ramalinga Swamigal, Kripananda Variar, Appar Swamigal, Sri Narayana Guru, Shirdi Sai Baba, Mata Amritananda mayi etc were not in Brahmin caste.*

*All of them evolved to be Brahmin. Ved Vyas, Manu, Vasistha etc upheld the importance of Brahmin. But they were not born in Brahmin caste.*

*Lord Krishna, who positioned Brahmins as supreme though his Baghvad Gita, was a backward caste Yadav. There is not even single HINDU god who is a Brahmin. But all our ancestors propagated, supported and fought for Brahmanism. However, no Brahmin wrote or said anything in favour of Brahmanism. It was non-Brahmins who upheld the positions of Brahmins seeing them as role models.*
*Try to figure out why for yourself, rather than swallowing the puked items (information) provided by the missionaries and communists. A Brahmin's son/daughter cannot be called Brahmin until and unless he/she qualify as so. If that was the case, why don't you call Ravan a Brahmin? His father Visravas was a famous Brahmin.*

*Dhrona was a Brahmin, but he became a renowned Kshatriya. Vishwamitra, the son of a Kshatriya grew vigorously with the qualities of a Brahmin.*

*Just because one is born to a Brahmin family CANNOT be Brahmin. Krishna envisaged Brahmin not as caste or religion. It's like a profession. How will you address your college professor's son? Do you call him professor? Just because your classmate's father is a doctor, will you address her as doctor? The lawyer's son automatically becomes lawyer? No - they have to be qualified for that.*

*Our ancestors envisaged that democracy and merit are the foundation of a healthy society, hence never supported the generational dynasties. But that has changed during the last 1000 years.*
*Our ancestors say Brahmin is a position. It is a status. Not a caste.*

“janmana jaayate shudraha. Sanskaaraat dvija uchyate. vedapaati bhavet vipra. brahma jnanathi brahmana.”

*“By birth, every man is a Shudra (an ignorant person). Through various types of disciplines (samskaras), he becomes dvija (twice born). Through the studies of Veda, he becomes a vipra (or a wise man). Through realization of supreme spirit (brahmajnana), he becomes a Brahmin.”*

*He whoever is wise, without a caste, not bound by kama-krodha-lobha-moha-mada-maatsarya (lust, anger, covetousness, delusion, pride, jealousy: These are the six passions of the mind), has realized the 'Self' (consciousness), has established himself in Brahman (The cosmos) and the one in him is a Brahmin according to the Vedas.*

*Two broad territorial divisions exist among the Brahmin: the Panch Gour (Five Northerner) and the Panch Dravida (Five Southerner). Their skin colour can be fair or black. Their races are different. That means, Brahmanism has nothing to do with caste or race - it can only be achieved. The society gave respect to Brahmins not out of fear, but because of great regards and respect they commanded through their Sattvik life style. A Brahmin was considered as the flag-ship of Sanatan Dharma.*

*To achieve Brahmanism, one has to follow Sattvik life style. They have clearly noted in all scriptures that “Sattvik Lifestyle” is perfect for Ayru-Arogya-Soukhya (longevity, health and happiness). It includes self-discipline, spiritual practices like prayer, yoga and meditation, and cultivating virtuous qualities such as honesty, non-violence, compassion, contentment, selflessness etc.*

*Satvik food is the foundation of such life. You are not supposed to eat part of dead body. Those who followed Sattvik food and life style were elevated to a position of Brahmin.* *Hence vegetarianism is the basic foundation of Brahminism. Those who wished their children continue to this life style, adhered to this practice in their families.*
*Just like the Mulayam Singhs, Karunanidhis, Sonia Gandhis, Farooq Abdullas, Bal Thackereys etc want their children to become politicians, it is normal for a Brahmin to think that his children or parambara (heritage or succession) to live a life of Brahmin.*

*But it was not an easy task like becoming politicians. One has to be qualified to be one. Hence they have developed communities surrounding temples and continued the Vedic practices and rituals. Children were not allowed to mingle with others because of their selfishness to see coming generations to live a happy and contended life.*

*The evolved people dreamed that their ancestors follow the Sattvik life style by being vegetarian - this slowly developed into a community thinking. Later the public started calling this community as Brahmin caste. So, it was easier for a child born in Brahmin caste to be a Brahmin than child born in other castes. But there is a huge negative for this. A child born in such communities has the responsibility of hundreds of generations’ aspirations and dreams.*

"But I have read that some Brahmin sects were eating fish and non-vegetarian"
*"It's a fake story. Please show me a proof? You have to quote from authentic sources. The Brahmin family inter-mingled with fishermen community started eating fish and floated such convenient stories such as fish is Jalapushpa or their eating fish was mentioned in some Puranas. That story is not true.

Some people told me another funny story - "our ancestors were eating mid-portion of fish. Then join its head and tail with a mantra so that it gets life again." Fair enough. You also eat mid-portion and give life to the fish, I said. Nobody has shown me such magic till this date.*

"Oh, I didn't know so much. I have been eating non-vegetarian food for quite some time..."Amitabh said.
*"If you are born in a Brahmin community that was following vegetarianism for the last few thousand years, be very very careful.*

*You are not aware about the huge mistake you are inviting. Your ancestors wanted you to live a life of a pure Brahmin. They wanted to see that the evolved human beings would remain in this planet. And you are happily going against their Parambara (heritage). Will the Jeevatma be pleased? Your 'self' will be confused and DNA will develp conflict."*

*By eating non-veg food you are not only inviting wrath of your ancestors, but also creating a huge conflict with your DNA. There is something known as ' Parambarya Maryada' (Traditional discipline) encoded in your DNA. Those who learned about genetics and DNA can tell you for how many years the power of genes will continue in generations.*

*Simply put, a real Brahmin is a vegetarian that doesn't mean every vegetarian is a Brahmin. All Sattviks are Brahmins, that doesn't mean a person born in Brahmin caste is Sattvik. A person eating non-vegetarian and claiming to be a Brahmin is similar to a corrupt politician making statements against corruption.*

*When you are born in a Brahmin family, the existence gives you a great opportunity to be vegetarian hence you can be a Sattvik following cosmically ordained life style of non-violence. When you eat dead-body you are sharing the violence and becoming responsible for a brutal killing. This is unheard in your DNA behavior for the last 2000 years.*

*I have already discussed about the DNA conflicts and function of Brain in some articles. It will be carried and reflected in your genes too. Then, there will be no point in crying foul and telling people that god is unfair to my family! You are inviting miseries for the next generation too. Just look around and see the increasing infertility, genetic disorders and diseases, physical ailments among Brahmin families....Some Brahmin castes are becoming extinct... .."*
"You are scaring me Uday Sir....What will I do then sir....?”

*"I am telling you facts that I understood. It shouldn't scare you. Face the facts. Be grateful to the existence to let you take birth in a community that believed in Brahmanism for centuries. Stop eating any dead body part right NOW. Do penance for insulting your ancestors. Focus on Sattvik style...At least, some corrections in life can happen..."!*
Forward....

 

[tbs]

hi

not all brahmins are veg...in bengal....all brahmins eat FISH....its must brahmin weddings too...

so the food is based on geographical conditions...i think....once some 2000 yes ago..generally

all human being hunting and eating non veg early vedic periods...

 

[Mur61]

The phrase "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" is mentioned several times in the Mahabharata.
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः
धर्म हिंसा तथीव च
Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma.

The following extract is narrated by Sauti Muni talking about Rishi Sahasrapat telling Rishi Ruru about the characteristics of a Brahmana.
Verily the highest virtue of man is sparing the life of others. Therefore a Brahmana should never take the life of any creature.
A Brahmana should be versed in the Vedas and Vedangas, and should inspire all creatures with belief in God.
He should be benevolent to all creatures, truthful, and forgiving, even as it is his paramount duty to retain the Vedas in his memory.

The duties of the Kshatriya are not thine. To be stern, to wield the sceptre and to rule the subjects properly are the duties of the Kshatriya.

In the Anusasana Parva, Yudhisthira is asked by Lord Krishna to ask Bhishma any questions he may have as this will be his last opportunity to do so. Yudhisthira states that Bhishma has told him that 'ahimsa paramo dharma' and is asking about it in the context of conducting Sraddha in which meat is offered.

Yudhisthira asks how can killing be avoided if meat is to be offered in offering sraddha in honor of ancestors?
Bhishma answers by stating that absention from eating meat is a great sacrifice (yagnya) and provides many benefits. He goes on to state that numerous benefits of Ahimsa.
Here ahimsa is translated as abstention from cruelty in relation to killing for the sake of eating the flesh of the killed animal for personal pleasure. In essence, Bhishma is stating that it is very beneficial to be vegetarian because thereby there is no cruelty to animals.
(Edited from an article in Hindupedia .)

In today's world very few will fit in to define strictly as "Brahmana". But any one can follow the path of Ahimsa by abstaining from cruelty of killing an innocent life for the sake of personal pleasure.

Brahmanyan
Bangalore.

May be but Mahabharatha is full of violence, some done by Lord Krishna himself.

 

[eXe]

Actually its fine is one wants to eat anything they like as long they state that its their desire and preference and leave the Shastras and smritis out of it and not try to justify their dietary choices on technical grounds.

There is a story of Mulla Nasaruddin who goes to a tailor to get a shirt stiched.
The tailor tells him it would be ready in 1 week If God Wills( Insha Allah).
Then when Mulla Nasaruddin goes to the tailor after 1 week again the tailor said..after 1 week God willing...again this dragged on and on..till Mulla Nasaruddin asked him.
" How long would you take if you leave God out of it?"

Likewise anyone can eat what they like and they should leave Shastras/Smirtis/Religion out of it.

Btw migrating to a different land doesnt force anyone to eat like the locals of the place.
Its optional.

Yes, I personally don't care for the Shastras or what have you- it's only out of politeness and respect for other members on this website with a caste/religious connotation that I pointed it out that technically, it is permissible when abroad.

Re: Migration and eating habits, well it's up to you whether to assimilate with the (usually superior) culture or not. If the culture you migrated to is not superior to your own, you wouldn't be migrating there- the traffic would be the other way around. Let's be humble and accept such facts. I have assimilated, I married a Thai-Australian, eat beef pork and all of it- but draw the line at insects. You can live your whole life in an Indian only community and never assimilate (as many do), but then why bother leaving India to begin with.

 

[renuka]

Yes, I personally don't care for the Shastras or what have you- it's only out of politeness and respect for other members on this website with a caste/religious connotation that I pointed it out that technically, it is permissible when abroad.

Re: Migration and eating habits, well it's up to you whether to assimilate with the (usually superior) culture or not. If the culture you migrated to is not superior to your own, you wouldn't be migrating there- the traffic would be the other way around. Let's be humble and accept such facts. I have assimilated, I married a Thai-Australian, eat beef pork and all of it- but draw the line at insects. You can live your whole life in an Indian only community and never assimilate (as many do), but then why bother leaving India to begin with.

Its not about assimilation or following culture.
Its about what your body wants to eat.
Your body likes all types of food and some others like other foods.
For eg you like eating beef, pork etc..thats what your body aligns with.
Some westerners who grew up eating beef, pork etc..later on shift to vegan diet because thats what their body desires.
This too is subject to change..some start eating meat again and some others like you could revert to becoming a vegetarian again when your body desires differently.

Its about alignment of the mind and body and one can strike a balance in any type of diet be it from a hunter gatherer's hunting for his food to a sanyasi's fruits and milk.

But again its best to leave religion out of it..even by saying you want to be polite..honestly that makes it not too conducive cos its actually about your desire and it wont make a difference even if Manu Smiti's dietary dictates went beyond Bharatavarsha.


Btw many Non Brahmin migrants whose ancestors migrated to other countries 300 years ago,majority adhere to their cultural diet.

 

[eXe]

Its not about assimilation or following culture.
Its about what your body wants to eat.
Your body likes all types of food and some others like other foods.
For eg you like eating beef, pork etc..thats what your body aligns with.
Some westerners who grew up eating beef, pork etc..later on shift to vegan diet because thats what their body desires.
This too is subject to change..some start eating meat again and some others like you could revert to becoming a vegetarian again when your body desires differently.

Its about alignment of the mind and body and one can strike a balance in any type of diet be it from a hunter gatherer's hunting for his food to a sanyasi's fruits and milk.

But again its best to leave religion out of it..even by saying you want to be polite..honestly that makes it not too conducive cos its actually about your desire and it wont make a difference even if Manu Smiti's dietary dictates went beyond Bharatavarsha.


Btw many Non Brahmin migrants whose ancestors migrated to other countries 300 years ago,majority adhere to their cultural diet.

Very well said, I actually agree with you. However most people need a set of standards or rules to be part of a group. If the rules are too weak or open to individual interpretation, such cults or groups don't survive for long. Islam for example has maintained itself and grown for 1400 years precisely because if a young Muslim boy or girl breaks any of the serious rules, they are ostracized and cut off completely from their families. The taboo builds the identity builds the meme/culture. So it's the same thing, if you go on a Muslim forum and say you eat pork without sufficiently justifying it, they would consider that as offensive.

Cultures that are unable to keep transmitting their taboos and ideas down to further generations go extinct. I will not be raising any of my children as Indian, because I don't have enough confidence in myself to live up or down to that culture. But when my step-son asked me on a trip to India, what will happen if an Indian eats beef- I explained to him that absolutely nothing will happen biologically, however the Indian cow within India is accorded a special status and respect within the culture for old scriptural reasons. You have to talk up such things if you want people to respect it...almost every culture has it's holy cows.

 

[sankarcs]

"Yes, I personally don't care for the Shastras or what have you- it's only out of politeness and respect for other members on this website with a caste/religious connotation that I pointed it out that technically, it is permissible when abroad."

I heard many of the foreign girls get child before marriage. It is permissible. Whether we are ready allow our daughters ?
The daughters can also put so many arguments to justify her need. Whether we will accept ?

" I married a Thai-Australian, eat beef pork and all of it- but draw the line at insects. "
Why that border line ? For another person that border of insects not needed. Will you accept and follow them .

A thief or murderer etc also puts so many scientific and acceptable reasons. Whether we will agree ?

 

[eXe]

"Yes, I personally don't care for the Shastras or what have you- it's only out of politeness and respect for other members on this website with a caste/religious connotation that I pointed it out that technically, it is permissible when abroad."

I heard many of the foreign girls get child before marriage. It is permissible. Whether we are ready allow our daughters ?
The daughters can also put so many arguments to justify her need. Whether we will accept ?

" I married a Thai-Australian, eat beef pork and all of it- but draw the line at insects. "
Why that border line ? For another person that border of insects not needed. Will you accept and follow them .

A thief or murderer etc also puts so many scientific and acceptable reasons. Whether we will agree ?

Re: insects it is just my preference.

To compare my choice of spouse or dietary preference to theft and murder is idiotic and disrespectful, you should think before posting further. I believe morality and ethics stem from compassion and reason, not unthinking adherence to diktats in scripture.

Re: children out of wedlock, my stepson was born in such circumstances. You will not understand if your mindset is no different from a cave dweller who needs to "allow" their daughter to make their life decisions after they reach the age of majority, or if you don't view them as adults on par or equal to yourself.

 

[Mur61]

Vegetarian for Brahmins was initiated by Saint Agasthya,
when he was invited to dine with demons like vadapi and Illvalan. Illvalan used to turn his brother vadapi into a ram, and killed it and made dish out of it and asked the invited guests to eat it. Not to displease the host, the guests ate it and after eaten it , Illvalan by the virtue of boon got by him, called out the brother vadapi to come out of the stomach of the guests. Vadapi will come out tearing the stomach of the guests in full form. In this manner, many brahmins and rishis were killed by these demons. The demons then devor the guests. In the similar manner, when sage Agasthya happen to pass through their place, these demons invited him to have dinner with him. Because of supernatural powers agasthya had, he came to know the ill intentions of these demons and without second thought he agreed to take part in the dinner. As usual, vadapi was turned into goat and got cooked by his brother and served to Sage Agasthya. Agasthya ate the goat and after that uttered "Vadapi jeeranoth bava". When Illvalan tried to call his barother vadapi, vadapi did not appear and Illvalan was shocked and surprised. Knowing that his brother was killed was sage agasthya, he got furious and tried to attack and kill sage agasthya. Agasthya again by his power , reduced Illvalan to ashes and thus got rid of both the demons.. Now sage Agasthya came to a conclusion. He instructed that "From now on, No spritual oriented persons (including brahmins) and sages, rishis should consume meat and meat oriented products in what ever manner . So it's Agasthya who is responsible for the vegetarianism of the brahmins and rishis...

 

[JyothiPrakash]

What Will Happen if a Brahmin Eats Non-Vegetarian Food?*....
A question from my reader Amitabh Sharma: "Sir, I have seen lot of Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. What will happen if a Brahmin eats non-vegetarian?"

*"What do you expect to happen? Your stomach has power to digest both. And it is your false belief that Brahmin as a caste don't eat non-vegetarian"*

"Phew...I was relieved. Sir, I thought you were fanatic vegetarian...In fact, I am a Brahmin and have eaten non-veg...Still I can follow Brahmanism, right?"

*"Brahmanism has nothing to do with today's Brahmin caste. If you follow Brahmanism - that is Sattvik way of life - you have to be pure vegetarian."*

"I am confused..."
*"Our ancestors thrived to be a Brahmin...They knew that Brahmanism is divinely ordained cosmological order. They realized that a human can lead a perfect, peaceful and contented life if he followed Brahmanism...Hence everybody wanted to be Brahmins. They thrived to be one....*

*Sages like Vasishta, Viswamitra, Vyasa, Jambooka rishi, Shrunga muni, Valmiki, Agasthya, Gowtama etc were not born in Brahmin caste. But they gained ultimate knowledge (brahmajnana) and became Brahmins. Sant Namdev, Sant Ravidass, Sant Kabir and Guru Nanak were not caste Brahmins. Puttaparti Sai Baba, Ramalinga Swamigal, Kripananda Variar, Appar Swamigal, Sri Narayana Guru, Shirdi Sai Baba, Mata Amritananda mayi etc were not in Brahmin caste.*

*All of them evolved to be Brahmin. Ved Vyas, Manu, Vasistha etc upheld the importance of Brahmin. But they were not born in Brahmin caste.*

*Lord Krishna, who positioned Brahmins as supreme though his Baghvad Gita, was a backward caste Yadav. There is not even single HINDU god who is a Brahmin. But all our ancestors propagated, supported and fought for Brahmanism. However, no Brahmin wrote or said anything in favour of Brahmanism. It was non-Brahmins who upheld the positions of Brahmins seeing them as role models.*
*Try to figure out why for yourself, rather than swallowing the puked items (information) provided by the missionaries and communists. A Brahmin's son/daughter cannot be called Brahmin until and unless he/she qualify as so. If that was the case, why don't you call Ravan a Brahmin? His father Visravas was a famous Brahmin.*

*Dhrona was a Brahmin, but he became a renowned Kshatriya. Vishwamitra, the son of a Kshatriya grew vigorously with the qualities of a Brahmin.*

*Just because one is born to a Brahmin family CANNOT be Brahmin. Krishna envisaged Brahmin not as caste or religion. It's like a profession. How will you address your college professor's son? Do you call him professor? Just because your classmate's father is a doctor, will you address her as doctor? The lawyer's son automatically becomes lawyer? No - they have to be qualified for that.*

*Our ancestors envisaged that democracy and merit are the foundation of a healthy society, hence never supported the generational dynasties. But that has changed during the last 1000 years.*
*Our ancestors say Brahmin is a position. It is a status. Not a caste.*

“janmana jaayate shudraha. Sanskaaraat dvija uchyate. vedapaati bhavet vipra. brahma jnanathi brahmana.”

*“By birth, every man is a Shudra (an ignorant person). Through various types of disciplines (samskaras), he becomes dvija (twice born). Through the studies of Veda, he becomes a vipra (or a wise man). Through realization of supreme spirit (brahmajnana), he becomes a Brahmin.”*

*He whoever is wise, without a caste, not bound by kama-krodha-lobha-moha-mada-maatsarya (lust, anger, covetousness, delusion, pride, jealousy: These are the six passions of the mind), has realized the 'Self' (consciousness), has established himself in Brahman (The cosmos) and the one in him is a Brahmin according to the Vedas.*

*Two broad territorial divisions exist among the Brahmin: the Panch Gour (Five Northerner) and the Panch Dravida (Five Southerner). Their skin colour can be fair or black. Their races are different. That means, Brahmanism has nothing to do with caste or race - it can only be achieved. The society gave respect to Brahmins not out of fear, but because of great regards and respect they commanded through their Sattvik life style. A Brahmin was considered as the flag-ship of Sanatan Dharma.*

*To achieve Brahmanism, one has to follow Sattvik life style. They have clearly noted in all scriptures that “Sattvik Lifestyle” is perfect for Ayru-Arogya-Soukhya (longevity, health and happiness). It includes self-discipline, spiritual practices like prayer, yoga and meditation, and cultivating virtuous qualities such as honesty, non-violence, compassion, contentment, selflessness etc.*

*Satvik food is the foundation of such life. You are not supposed to eat part of dead body. Those who followed Sattvik food and life style were elevated to a position of Brahmin.* *Hence vegetarianism is the basic foundation of Brahminism. Those who wished their children continue to this life style, adhered to this practice in their families.*
*Just like the Mulayam Singhs, Karunanidhis, Sonia Gandhis, Farooq Abdullas, Bal Thackereys etc want their children to become politicians, it is normal for a Brahmin to think that his children or parambara (heritage or succession) to live a life of Brahmin.*

*But it was not an easy task like becoming politicians. One has to be qualified to be one. Hence they have developed communities surrounding temples and continued the Vedic practices and rituals. Children were not allowed to mingle with others because of their selfishness to see coming generations to live a happy and contended life.*

*The evolved people dreamed that their ancestors follow the Sattvik life style by being vegetarian - this slowly developed into a community thinking. Later the public started calling this community as Brahmin caste. So, it was easier for a child born in Brahmin caste to be a Brahmin than child born in other castes. But there is a huge negative for this. A child born in such communities has the responsibility of hundreds of generations’ aspirations and dreams.*

"But I have read that some Brahmin sects were eating fish and non-vegetarian"
*"It's a fake story. Please show me a proof? You have to quote from authentic sources. The Brahmin family inter-mingled with fishermen community started eating fish and floated such convenient stories such as fish is Jalapushpa or their eating fish was mentioned in some Puranas. That story is not true.

Some people told me another funny story - "our ancestors were eating mid-portion of fish. Then join its head and tail with a mantra so that it gets life again." Fair enough. You also eat mid-portion and give life to the fish, I said. Nobody has shown me such magic till this date.*

"Oh, I didn't know so much. I have been eating non-vegetarian food for quite some time..."Amitabh said.
*"If you are born in a Brahmin community that was following vegetarianism for the last few thousand years, be very very careful.*

*You are not aware about the huge mistake you are inviting. Your ancestors wanted you to live a life of a pure Brahmin. They wanted to see that the evolved human beings would remain in this planet. And you are happily going against their Parambara (heritage). Will the Jeevatma be pleased? Your 'self' will be confused and DNA will develp conflict."*

*By eating non-veg food you are not only inviting wrath of your ancestors, but also creating a huge conflict with your DNA. There is something known as ' Parambarya Maryada' (Traditional discipline) encoded in your DNA. Those who learned about genetics and DNA can tell you for how many years the power of genes will continue in generations.*

*Simply put, a real Brahmin is a vegetarian that doesn't mean every vegetarian is a Brahmin. All Sattviks are Brahmins, that doesn't mean a person born in Brahmin caste is Sattvik. A person eating non-vegetarian and claiming to be a Brahmin is similar to a corrupt politician making statements against corruption.*

*When you are born in a Brahmin family, the existence gives you a great opportunity to be vegetarian hence you can be a Sattvik following cosmically ordained life style of non-violence. When you eat dead-body you are sharing the violence and becoming responsible for a brutal killing. This is unheard in your DNA behavior for the last 2000 years.*

*I have already discussed about the DNA conflicts and function of Brain in some articles. It will be carried and reflected in your genes too. Then, there will be no point in crying foul and telling people that god is unfair to my family! You are inviting miseries for the next generation too. Just look around and see the increasing infertility, genetic disorders and diseases, physical ailments among Brahmin families....Some Brahmin castes are becoming extinct... .."*
"You are scaring me Uday Sir....What will I do then sir....?”

*"I am telling you facts that I understood. It shouldn't scare you. Face the facts. Be grateful to the existence to let you take birth in a community that believed in Brahmanism for centuries. Stop eating any dead body part right NOW. Do penance for insulting your ancestors. Focus on Sattvik style...At least, some corrections in life can happen..."!*
Forward....

Very good compilation.
ॐ
Most of us may be aware of our ultimate purpose, truth and world.
Only a sattvik knows that he/she is not perishable, the-truth.
He/she knows that outside him/her exists the world full of material (sattvik/rajasik/tamasik) and others are free to choose the material for their mortal existence.
A sattvik family knows what is a-sattvik; maintaining sattvikta in a brahmin family is much easier than in other families.
ॐ

 

[renuka]

Dear eXe ,

It might look a bit unfair to your spouse to reveal details about her in Forum with regards to your step son.
Its always better to not let anyone else judge your spouse and step son.

 

[ekaputra]

whether to assimilate with the (usually superior) culture

In another post there is mention of cows in Japan being massaged to the accompaniment of soothing music. I do not know whether the 'superior culture' reference is to Japan.

The Japanese have a great work culture and are also pioneers in miniaturization and industrial automation and novel methods in promoting mathematical and logical thinking at the elementary level through puzzles. Their 3i (imitate, improvise, innovate) is a great mantra we would do well to adopt. There is a lot more that can be said in their favour.

That said, it cannot be denied that some species of whales are being targeted by the Japanese to the point of extinction. Any restraint on their part has been only due to pressure from other nations. Some years back 'Animal Planet' used to regularly play a clip of a Japanese lady saying that whale meat was never in their home menu as she and her family members were conscious of their responsibility to save this great creature and she urged fellow Japanese to do likewise. Fishing of sea cucumbers (reportedly a delicacy in Japan) and some of the fishing methods of the Japanese are posing a threat to coral reefs including 'the great barrier reef' one of the greatest natural wonders of the world. It is up to the individual to assimilate this 'food culture' as yet another component of a superior culture.

Does massaging cows compensate for causing irreversible ecological damage?

 

[JyothiPrakash]

Its not about assimilation or following culture.
Its about what your body wants to eat.
Your body likes all types of food and some others like other foods.
For eg you like eating beef, pork etc..thats what your body aligns with.
Some westerners who grew up eating beef, pork etc..later on shift to vegan diet because thats what their body desires.
This too is subject to change..some start eating meat again and some others like you could revert to becoming a vegetarian again when your body desires differently.

Its about alignment of the mind and body and one can strike a balance in any type of diet be it from a hunter gatherer's hunting for his food to a sanyasi's fruits and milk.

But again its best to leave religion out of it..even by saying you want to be polite..honestly that makes it not too conducive cos its actually about your desire and it wont make a difference even if Manu Smiti's dietary dictates went beyond Bharatavarsha.


Btw many Non Brahmin migrants whose ancestors migrated to other countries 300 years ago,majority adhere to their cultural diet.

Thanks for the composed writing reflecting the destination.
ॐ
One's mortal body starts desiring/ demanding what one is destined to be - sattvik / rajasik / tamasik.
A person destined (or decides) to be sattvik starts knowing / guiding his/her body to co-operate to achieve satopradhanta for self.
One's mortal body, after all is made of material, keeps on changing timely as per then assimilated direction/guidance. In the process all worldly materials automatically start co-operating in favour of the satopradhanta unmukh.
Sattvikta is easy for them who are destined/selected to become sattvik in this trigunatmak world.
ॐ

 

[Mani_Chennai]

Hello everyone, I am Eshwaran and just joined this community, there's something that I have always wanted to do but because of my beliefs I haven't been able to. I have a small urge to TRY non veg food just for me to be able to get a taste of it and have an experience. I follow Kanchi mahaperiyava's teaching, but will trying non veg make me be rejected by god? Is it wrong to just try for an experience?

I have wishes to god and everything is going smoothly and very thankful to that, but if I try non veg, will my prayers not be answered by god? Will he stop fulfilling my wishes? Will he forcefully take me to a path that will lead me to be a failure than the path he chose for me to be successful if I try non veg?

Please let me know, thank you.

Until the Bhakti movement took root, every one ate meat. You can try and but you will also inherit problems since your gut biom is not used to contamination from meat etc., Also, once you start eating meat, youe empathy for animals and nature will dimishe and your childrena and grand children will pay for it. I have four friends in USA and their children born there are all vegetarian and will not touch meat,egg, fish etc., They are very healthy and Americans respect that. Many Americans are now converted to vegnaism and vegetarinism. Also, the meat, fish etc., you try will have microplastic and other chemicals and you will become sick and your hospital bills will go way up. The choice is yours. It is also true that when you eat out, you don't know if they had used the same laddles in a meat dish and reused it in a veg. dish. Icecream, cakes will have eggs. So, our religion never takes about what you should eat. When Kannaopnayanar gave meat to Shiva, he took it. Our historical offering had sheep sacrifices. I am told by a friend's grand father at around 1954, a Brahmin priest performed a YYaga sacrificed 3 goats and ate the perigardium spread on throns, roasted with ghee and he fought against it, complaine to police. They said that is “religious freedom', nothing could be done. So, if you want to try and bear the consequences, this forum is not the right place to ask for advice.

 

[Mani_Chennai]

May be but Mahabharatha is full of violence, some done by Lord Krishna himself.

Krishna did to save humanity, he did not eat them. The question is, when agriculture (as done today) was not prevalent, did people eat meat? Yes.

 

[Mur61]

When agriculture, (mind the word culture) was not invented, men moved like a brute and ate what ever he could . When he became aware of himself and others, he found that he can have more choices.. When he learned to utter syllables, he became more advanced and when he found the use of fire and wheel, he has touched the base of civilization. More and more awareness made him many choices and one among them was food (whether it is veg or non veg)... As societies expanded many classes came forth. from which priest class also one. Priests were highly regarded next to kings. Priests to appease Gods (what they thought , will shower blessings on people and society) began to formulate rules and rituals.. Thus goes the stories of humanism...