Being Vegetarian

[Singleliner]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

KRS,so,you agree vegetarianism helps spirituality,then,all Hindus should follow it,since every one needs to be enlightened with the same spirituality

 

[KRS]

No, sir, just because vagetarianism helps sprituality, that does not necessarily follow that one MUST seek after spirituality. It is a personal choice, like dress and food. Some of us are inclined to spirituality and others not. Hinduism is great, because it does not prescribe one solution to all. It recognizes that people are all different in terms of their spritualty in this life, so it accommodates all. In fact the root of 'dharma' comes out od 'dhir' which is 'what holds up the universe', which is nature. It is not based on some relativistic concept such as 'absolute justice' or 'bad' and 'good'. Like a svabhava will never accrue karma, so is the svabhava of a human being is to eat both meat and vegetables. If someone wants to make it a choice, it is up to that person.

Regards,
KRS

KRS,so,you agree vegetarianism helps spirituality,then,all Hindus should follow it,since every one needs to be enlightened with the same spirituality

 

[Singleliner]

KRS,now,we both are sharing the same point,that, vegetarianism alone can bring the true spirituality,and those who are non-veg cannot enjoy the true spirituality

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Singleliner sir,
Unfortunately, wrong once again! Vegetarianism (even then only certain sattvic foods) PROMOTES the increase of Sattvic qualities in a human being. Having more Sattvic qualities, according to our gurus promotes the spiritual stature better than other two gunas. But this does not mean that all sattvic quality predominant people are all spiritually advanced, nor does it mean that people with other gunas predominant can not attain spirituality.

Guna also varies day to day and age to age in a person based on his/her basic nature. I have seen many a scoundrel who is a pure vegetarian and I have seen very spiritual people who eat meat. So, let us not jump to quick baseless conclusions.

Regards,
KRS

KRS,now,we both are sharing the same point,that, vegetarianism alone can bring the true spirituality,and those who are non-veg cannot enjoy the true spirituality

 

[happyhindu]

Singleliner,

Meat eating was allowed in some smrithis. Any food, including vegetarian food, if not sanctified by prayer was considered 'selfish' and therefore a sin.

Vedic homas consisted of animal sacrifice. The priests are meat. It was sanctified sacrifical meat.

Agastya ate meat.

Rama ate meat (according to Kamba Ramayan). According to Venkatarama Raghavan in The Ramayana tradition in Asia: papers presented at the International Seminar on the Ramayana Tradition in Asia Valmiki Ramayan also had verses mentioning Rama as a meat eater but it disappeared with time. This is an interesting thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28150-did-rama-eat-meat-4.html

Please note the sundara kandam verse:

na mAmsam rAgavO bunktE na sAbi madu sEvatE |
vanyam suvihitam nityam baktimsnAti pancamam ||

Translation:
Sri-rAghava is not eating (mAmsam) fleshy portion of fruits. Not having (madu) honey too. Everyday at the 5th hour - between the 24th nazigai and 30th nazigai, the water prepared according to care [Acharam ] is used to boil the roots produced in the forest - and is had. There are 10 manmatha entanglements - And not interested in any - i.e. arati - eat to sustain his body and without liking.

Were the vedic priests, rama, agastya, not spiritual?

 

[[email protected]]

To KRS sir Sorry I cant acept you point for Spiritual upliftment one should go for only Vegtarian diet. Meat eater cannot sit for more time in meditation becouse of digestion will take a long time,but simple veg diet will digested in very soon.(all foods will stay in the stomach for 2 hrs) then only conversion of enegry starts. So for a Spiritual life only vegtarian is the best and no second thought. s.r.k.

 

[KRS]

Sri esarkey Ji,

With all due respect, your assumptions are not valid about digestive times. Nuts, whole grains, lentils have the same digestive time as chicken, fish or turkey. Only beef and pork increase the digestive times to an hour more.

Since both vegetarians and non-vegetarians can start proper meditation (not the only way to spirituality, by the way), do you mean to say that the one more hour it takes to digest beef and pork will substantially impede one towards meditating? What if that person needs four hours of sleep versus a vegetarian who needs the full eight hours, because the meat eater has more energy?

These types of arguments have no scientific backing.

Regards,
KRS

To KRS sir Sorry I cant acept you point for Spiritual upliftment one should go for only Vegtarian diet. Meat eater cannot sit for more time in meditation becouse of digestion will take a long time,but simple veg diet will digested in very soon.(all foods will stay in the stomach for 2 hrs) then only conversion of enegry starts. So for a Spiritual life only vegtarian is the best and no second thought. s.r.k.

 

[anandb]

A comparison to Rama or Agasthya eating meat cannot be a source of inspiration for us to eat meat in the present age. I have no issues against non-vegetarians who eat meat per se without quoting the scriptures or drawing comparisons to people of a different yuga. When they tend to draw inspiration it looks like they suffer from a guilt complex. I think it is a accepted fact that vegetarian food does lead to more Sattwic qualities which is a pre-requisite for someone to climb up on the spiritual ladder. Here we should make a difference between the various degrees of spiritual levels. Supposing A is a vegetarian by choice but is irreligious, immoral, and selfish and has other vices. He is apparently not spiritual at all. B is a non-vegetarian (probably by birth, family customs whatsoever) but has a lot of other noble qualities and definitely he is above A on the spiritual ladder. Rather than just talk about spirituality at a point of time (which leads to a conclusion that a non-vegetarian could be more spiritual than a vegetarian which is probably true), we need to see what is required to move up the spiritual ladder. There are a lot of noble qualities one has to acquire to move up this ladder and one of it is acquiring more Satwic qualities which is directly impacted by the food one partakes.

When a person is eating meat or other form of non-vegetarian foods, there is a killing of the animal which is a sin. Such food that is partaken acquires the negative vibrations of the killing process. This negative energy remains an obstacle to keep moving up the spiritual ladder. There are always people who argue that we kill even plants for food and other beings and organisms unknowingly. I will say here what the Paramacharyal says about this. The degree of pain experienced by plants when plucking them is minute as compared to the killing of animals. 99% of the fruits or vegetables are plucked this way and the plants still survive.

As for the killing of other beings unknowingly there is a prayaschitartha rite known as Vaisvadeva which is performed during the gurukulavasa stage. We can note here that Vaisvadeva is performed only for hurting and killing a lot of living beings unknowingly. This automatically precludes an act of killing living beings for food.

Quoting the Acharyal, a man does five types of household butcheries as per the Sanskrit verse below

Pancasuna grhasthasya vartante harahah sada
Khandani pesani culli jalkumbha upaskarah

1st butchery – Khandani – used to cut vegetables
2nd butchery – Pesani – pounding stone used to grind corn, pulses.
3rd butchery – Culli – kitchen fire – many insects, ants crawl about and perish in the fire.
4th butchery – Jalkumbha – water pot – insects dying under it or in water spilled from the pot.
5th butchery – Upaskarah – broomstick – insects getting killed by the act of sweeping.

Apart from the above, the Vaisvadeva is performed to ask forgiveness from unknowingly killing any other creature. Rightfully certain classes like the Kshatriyas were allowed meat eating due to the nature of their occupation but then the non meat eating Brahmin class was always looked upon as a ideal to shed meat eating at a later stage of their life.

I certainly don’t know if Shri Rama or Agasthya ate meat but if their so called meat-eating inspires us to eat meat now, we should also be prepared to be inspired by their other noble and super human qualities.

 

[Singleliner]

Is there any relationship between sattvic food and spirituality, and if so, looks like majority (95%)of the people in the world are not spiritual?

 

[happyhindu]

Some views

1) A comparison to Rama or Agasthya eating meat cannot be a source of inspiration for us to eat meat in the present age.

it is not a source of inspiration.

its to show that meat eating existed across various classes in the past. And that meat consumption, while not a healthy practice, is no barrier to spiritualism.

2) I have no issues against non-vegetarians who eat meat per se without quoting the scriptures or drawing comparisons to people of a different yuga. When they tend to draw inspiration it looks like they suffer from a guilt complex. I think it is a accepted fact that vegetarian food does lead to more Sattwic qualities which is a pre-requisite for someone to climb up on the spiritual ladder.

Some people i know (not indian) are the sweetest kindest people on earth. They eat pork almost every other day. Now i dunno how their humility, kindness and the ability to reach out to people in need, came about despite their food habits.

3) Here we should make a difference between the various degrees of spiritual levels. Supposing A is a vegetarian by choice but is irreligious, immoral, and selfish and has other vices. He is apparently not spiritual at all. B is a non-vegetarian (probably by birth, family customs whatsoever) but has a lot of other noble qualities and definitely he is above A on the spiritual ladder. Rather than just talk about spirituality at a point of time (which leads to a conclusion that a non-vegetarian could be more spiritual than a vegetarian which is probably true), we need to see what is required to move up the spiritual ladder. There are a lot of noble qualities one has to acquire to move up this ladder and one of it is acquiring more Satwic qualities which is directly impacted by the food one partakes.

this was a dilemma i faced for a very long time - whether or not veggie food promotes satvic qualities.

one guru, soaked up in vedanta, said moderation in the key (irrespective of veg or non-veg). he explained how the practice of yoga can cause behavior change, help control cravings, and brings in moderation. Over time, dispassion for food, control of taste and senses, acceptance of whatever food is given as bhiksha from the paramatma happens on its own...this does not depend on whether a person had been consuming veg or non-veg food (food given in bhiksha cud have meat as well).

for every view point and interpretation, there also seem to be a contrary viewpoint and interpretation. To me, both viewpoints (consumption in moderation of any food as well as abstinence of meat) are right. One probably just follows what comes along to each on its own.

I also know of a young man, born to parents who eat meat almost every other day, who did not touch meat since an infant (he used to vomit if his mum tried to feed him anything meat based as a kid). So i suppose all variations go with the various teachings....

4) When a person is eating meat or other form of non-vegetarian foods, there is a killing of the animal which is a sin.

Then surely the ones killing humans are also commiting a sin. Is an undertaker a sinner just for executing his job's orders of hanging a criminal. Are our military personnel sinners? Am sure all indians who killed the 'enemy' in the kargil war is a sinner then, not a deshbhakth jawan.

5) Such food that is partaken acquires the negative vibrations of the killing process. This negative energy remains an obstacle to keep moving up the spiritual ladder.

All food was prescribed for sanctification bcoz of those very ideas of negativity surrounding anything consumed (and also to thank god for the food provided), not just non-veg.

6) There are always people who argue that we kill even plants for food and other beings and organisms unknowingly. I will say here what the Paramacharyal says about this. The degree of pain experienced by plants when plucking them is minute as compared to the killing of animals. 99% of the fruits or vegetables are plucked this way and the plants still survive.

pain is pain for anyone, not sure we say its less pain for one organism and more pain for another just bcoz we happen to witness the pain and suffering of one and the other is mute, unable to express its 'suffering'.

Also, probably all military folk shd be condemned as sinners then.

As for the killing of other beings unknowingly there is a prayaschitartha rite known as Vaisvadeva which is performed during the gurukulavasa stage.

was told the purificatory rites of all food consumed, including meat and veggies, involved the prayaschita prayer - and was told it was part of a few smrithis actually.

We can note here that Vaisvadeva is performed only for hurting and killing a lot of living beings unknowingly. This automatically precludes an act of killing living beings for food.

Wud be grateful if you can provide literature to support that the preclution of the act of killing living beings for food - wud like to ask about it to someone.

Quoting the Acharyal, a man does five types of household butcheries as per the Sanskrit verse below

Pancasuna grhasthasya vartante harahah sada
Khandani pesani culli jalkumbha upaskarah

1st butchery – Khandani – used to cut vegetables
2nd butchery – Pesani – pounding stone used to grind corn, pulses.
3rd butchery – Culli – kitchen fire – many insects, ants crawl about and perish in the fire.
4th butchery – Jalkumbha – water pot – insects dying under it or in water spilled from the pot.
5th butchery – Upaskarah – broomstick – insects getting killed by the act of sweeping.

Apart from the above, the Vaisvadeva is performed to ask forgiveness from unknowingly killing any other creature.

Not meaning to be rude, but am wondering what about mosquitoes we kill knowingly? Don't we kill living beings like ants, cockroaches, bugs, with all kinds of sprays knowingly?

Rightfully certain classes like the Kshatriyas were allowed meat eating due to the nature of their occupation but then the non meat eating Brahmin class was always looked upon as a ideal to shed meat eating at a later stage of their life.

but the vedic priests did consume meat. i suppose you mean the vedanta or upanishadic class of brahmachari monks who are vegetarians by choice but upon sanyasam consume anything offered in bhiksha.

I certainly don’t know if Shri Rama or Agasthya ate meat but if their so called meat-eating inspires us to eat meat now, we should also be prepared to be inspired by their other noble and super human qualities.

one quality may be to not judge an other human based on food habits.

 

[anandb]

Dear HH

it is not a source of inspiration.

its to show that meat eating existed across various classes in the past. And that meat consumption, while not a healthy practice, is no barrier to spiritualism.

I agree

Some people i know (not indian) are the sweetest kindest people on earth. They eat pork almost every other day. Now i dunno how their humility, kindness and the ability to reach out to people in need, came about despite their food habits.

Sattwic qualities comes in many forms and I am saying that vegetarianism promotes it. In fact my example shows that a non-vegetarian can have other sattwic qualities. I am also not saying that a non-vegetarian is not spiritual. In order to achieve higher degrees of spirituality one needs to shed a lot in the way and something such as slaying another creature for food does acquire prominence. I don't agree that the Paramatma has given non-veg food as Bhiksha for those meat eaters. It is more a choice exerted by the person.

Then surely the ones killing humans are also commiting a sin. Is an undertaker a sinner just for executing his job's orders of hanging a criminal. Are our military personnel sinners? Am sure all indians who killed the 'enemy' in the kargil war is a sinner then, not a deshbhakth jawan.

There is a huge difference. We kill lambs, goats, cows or chicken for food and not because they have become our enemies in a Kargill like situation. Innocence is the key. தன்னை கொல்ல வந்த பசுவையும் கொல்லலாம். Said by our religion which considers the cow as holy. Our religion also says செய்யும் தொழிலே தெய்வம். So if you have taken the job as an executioner you better well do it. I personally consider spirituality is something one always strive to achieve but never get so near it. There is no full stop. It is quite possible that the executioner may stop and ponder whether what he is doing is right and may go to the next level.

All food was prescribed for sanctification bcoz of those very ideas of negativity surrounding anything consumed (and also to thank god for the food provided), not just non-veg.

This is my personal belief. In the eyes of god, all creations are his equal. I don't think a god whom we consider supremely kind and loving like to see one of his creations killing another. Killing an innocent creature would qualify as a sin in my dictionary.

was told the purificatory rites of all food consumed, including meat and veggies, involved the prayaschita prayer - and was told it was part of a few smrithis actually.

The Vaisvadeva is not one of the above you mentioned. It is performed specifically as one of the samskaras as mentioned by the Acharyal.

pain is pain for anyone, not sure we say its less pain for one organism and more pain for another just bcoz we happen to witness the pain and suffering of one and the other is mute, unable to express its 'suffering'.

Also, probably all military folk shd be condemned as sinners then.

I think we know that most of the vegetables and fruits are plucked without killing the plants as opposed to butchering the animals for food.
As our religion allows an exclusive warrior class known as Kshatriyas whose job is to kill an enemy and who is also allowed to partake non-vegetarian food and liquor, we are not talking about these people. Of course now there are no class distinctions like this and does not make any sense.

Wud be grateful if you can provide literature to support that the preclution of the act of killing living beings for food - wud like to ask about it to someone.

What I meant was the act of killing innocent animals for food is a sin.

Not meaning to be rude, but am wondering what about mosquitoes we kill knowingly? Don't we kill living beings like ants, cockroaches, bugs, with all kinds of sprays knowingly?

You are not rude at all. I kind of agree with you. But I do make judgments here as much as possible. I kill mosquitoes because they suck my blood. Same with bed bugs. I kill cockroaches as they spread infections in my kitchen. Honestly, I don't kill ants. As a boy, during the rains, I have lived with frogs, snakes and mongoose and have never killed them or encouraged anyone to kill them. Of course, I may be crushing numerous insects and ants under my foot but these come under killing unknowingly. Of course, I have not performed Vaisvadeva so definitely that is bad karma for me. I am probably old fashioned but I do believe in these things and have no problems in following as much as I can.

but the vedic priests did consume meat. i suppose you mean the vedanta or upanishadic class of brahmachari monks who are vegetarians by choice but upon sanyasam consume anything offered in bhiksha.

As per the Paramacharyal whom I read much, the vedic priests partook pea sized offerings of meat as prasad. They were not meat eaters as such.

one quality may be to not judge an other human based on food habits.

I am nobody to judge meat eaters and not doing so. I am only giving my thoughts on meat eating. Even leaving aside things like sin, religion etc. I feel on compassionate grounds innocent animals should not be killed. This also forms the basis for many non-vegetarians turning into vegetarians. Immediately people should not conclude that all vegetarians consider meat eaters as in compassionate. If we say the judiciary needs reforms, does not mean all judges are corrupt. I understand that I need to shed lot of baggage if I have to move up the spiritual ladder so no way I have any moral right to comment upon others.

 

[[email protected]]

to HHji and Anandbji. Today weare killing allsorts of Househols insets with useing sparys, but one thing we must understand this smallcreatures comeing from enviormental changes, first we must keep our house neat and clean so that this creaturers growth will be controled and on day we free from this insets and no nessacity to killing them Knowingly. Every thing in our hands.s.r.k.

 

[hariharan1972]

Should we also look at this from an economic point of view ? Can the world support 100% vegetarians or 100% non-vegetarians ?

I am of the view that vegetarians cannot assume superiority over nv's just as atheists cannot claim to be more rationale than the theists.

 

[Singleliner]

Attaching vegetarianism with spirituality is only followed by a very miniscule count, and the world is not going that way, and given a chance, we may have to re-write the definition of vegetarianism in line with our spirituality and sattvism.

 

[happyhindu]

Anand,

i agree with most of your postings. i have a small doubt:

This is my personal belief. In the eyes of god, all creations are his equal. I don't think a god whom we consider supremely kind and loving like to see one of his creations killing another. Killing an innocent creature would qualify as a sin in my dictionary.

why is there death then? if not for 'god', who kills us then? why are we not immortal? god should save and preserve his creation from the dukham of janma mrityu jara rogam right?

As per the Paramacharyal whom I read much, the vedic priests partook pea sized offerings of meat as prasad. They were not meat eaters as such.

i do not know about this sir, am not qualified to comment.

according to some gurus the fact that buddha died eating stale pork is just one small example. offering meat to bhikshuks was common then, and everyone including vedic brahmins were a meat eating class then. me too thinks it cud be true since the rig ved corresponded to the time period when man had not yet fully settled into agricultural way of life. was told all food (incl meat) was sanctified; and ofcourse abundance of food is a post industrial phenomenon.

 

[happyhindu]

Should we also look at this from an economic point of view ? Can the world support 100% vegetarians or 100% non-vegetarians ?

I am of the view that vegetarians cannot assume superiority over nv's just as atheists cannot claim to be more rationale than the theists.

tuf question hh ji.

when crop producing lands in some countries were turned into jatropa growing lands, the world experienced food shortage: Global food shortage linked to biofuel use | Jatropha Biofuel

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear vijisesh,

Hmm, I smell a gourmet here! ;-p

Anyway, coming to the gist of your post - You should note that I have not made any finger pointing at God or humans. It is just the act and how we see it that matters. So we will leave aside, for now, the theory of God giving us rice and fish and bedbugs.

The world is a result of karma i.e, whatever be our thoughts, our desires, our mind is indulged into them. Am speaking from the viewpoint of a soul who wishes to be happy and in the end attain moksha ie., liberation. So for them, actions do matter and repetitive births occur till the mind is washed of any attachments to this material world. Am not arguing what is right or wrong here, but merely attempting to suggest the path to happiness, and maybe liberation.

We are under the impression that someone called God has given us a digestive system that can digest meat as well, and hence it is acceptable. Why not human meat then? Dont like the taste, eh?

I offer you a counter - because we want to eat meat, we try to find out arguments that would suit us by saying that humans have canine teeth, an omnivorous digestive system etc. These are not because we are created with adaptabilities to eat meat, rather we chose so over the ages such that our system has been conditioned to accept it. Darwin theory holds good here - we have evolved and survived by eating meat, so we think that it is natural for us; moreover we see other animals subsisting on other animals and think that we are following the natural order. It may seem so - but we do have a mind; and mind has discriminatory power (that which animals dont have) and thus we are different from them because we exercise judgement, make rules and morals and try to co-exist. Co-existence in animals is for security; but for humans, it has evolved into respecting the others' individuality. Surely there is a difference?

Then again, what cannot be avoided is best not avoided. Safety comes first and hence we kill those beings for our self protection; but can you equate it with killing an animal for food, when other means are available?

The act of killing animals unknowingly has also karmic effects, but to a lesser degree because we are not wantonly inflicting injury or harm. For these too, there are general atonements. That is why pancha maha yagams is considered very important as it expresses our genuine affection to the world - all creatures alike and then to the higher elements as well as to the departed.

If you think that respecting all beings in this world is dull and boring and without excitement, I have nothing more to say.

I do not want to weigh the act of killing animals as a sin, but merely stating that they have karmic effects depending on our state of mind.

 

[SGanesan]

In the 21st Century, most Tamil Brahmins are vegetarians. Vegetarian food has a lot of health benefits and softens one's attitude to surrounding. I am happy that I am a vegetarian and do not miss any non-vegetarian food. We need not worry whether Tamil Brahmins were vegetarians or not during 7th or 3rd century. I personally feel that we should follow vegetarianism wherever we are.
Thanks

 

[sapthajihva]

D*a* Sh*i **S

Am unable to change the garbled title which reads as 'Dear Shri KRS'

As before, my response in light blue

Sir, in the food chain, getting killed is natural. From your logic, if we extend it, then every time you eat any food, including vegetarian, we accrue karma. Vegetables and plants have been scientifically known to have 'lefe' and 'feelings' too. Just because we do not see their 'hurt' does not mean they do not feel it. I propose such an extending of karma to everything that happens in the world is a man made artificial thinking, based on the human's capacity for empathy. It is a noble feeling, but unfortunately has nothing to do with accruing karma.

It is only natural from the view point of a human who shares the same mental capacity as that of animals and acts on instincts rather than discriminatory power. We do not harm the entire plant when we eat vegetables (execpt in some cases), but the life of a plant is much lower than that of animals. Moreover, the gradation of injury varies between an animal and a plant. So it seems that what you are proposing here seems to be much more artificial. Of course eating plants may also incur karma, but we eat plants & veg only for our survival i.e., we choose the mode by which the pain is reduced or is minimal. So the effects of karma are much diminished here. Generally the argument stops here, but there is another thing to it - we must do our nithya karmas regularly as it washes off the such karmas accrued by causing injury to other beings out of an act of survival or unknowingly.

Sir, first of all, eating meat is not to just to 'satisfy the tongue'. Only a vegetarian who sees food just for bare subsistence would talk like this. Since God has designed us to eat both vegetarian and meat, killing animals to eat is as natural as they come. There is no basis for this 'morality' in any of our scriptures. Isn't eating is like offering foods to the gods everyday? Why do we say prayers, when we start eating? Every culture has this practice. This is where 'the sin of killing is washed away when we eat' comes in. 'sacrifice' is not confined to one specific day - it occurs all the time in our lives.

Nobody has devised a grand design on us so that we can eat animals to our heart's content. Looks like this is just another excuse to justify meat eating. I am amused that you equate sacrifice into this context. Perhaps, the intent is different; dont you think so?

You say: eating is like offering foods to the gods - I say: If it is so, then does it imply that you have to effect the maximum torture out of a being for the sacrifice? As if no other means were available??

You say: the sin of killing is washed away when we eat (konnaal paavam thinnaal poochu) - I ask: Who says so? It is probably an extension of your imagination. Can you point me out anything in the scriptures that states the above???

When a judge sends a person to death row, does he accumulate any karma? When a butcher kills an animal does he accumulate any karma? Any killing does not accrue karma and this is the central focus of Maha Bharatha. What is natural never changes with the refineness of mind. This wrong thinking springs out of the belief, any killing, even for food is a sin. 'Carnal pleasure' is also the part of a human being's existence. Why should it not be compared to yagyna? Your problem is you are connecting a natural act that you do not believe in and projecting a moral code to it, without any sanctions from scriptures. Cite me a passage from any of our scriptures where it says that it is bad karma to kill an animal for food?

You are blindly questioning acts; looks like you are arguing my cause. I have been saying that it is the intent which matters. If there are no means of survival other than killing animals, then as a last resort one could probably agree that animals may be used for subsisting, but no more than that. We are discussing in a topic where nomadic life is long gone and a virtual world has set in. Survival is no longer the key - various modern techniques of cultivation have come in. Claiming that eating meat is for one's existence is a poor argument. You are skating on thin ice here.

There is an 'ahaara niyamam' by Swami Desikan. If we cannot live up to those expectations, then at least let us refrain from killing animals for food.

This is as ridiculous as they come - please cite the source, especially where it says that the prayachitham is to do pancha maha yagam. This may come from Jainism, but not from Hinduism.

I did not know that you were an authority on the scriptures, but I have to say that I wrote the above based on lectures that I have heard from learned pandits (who were great exponents of the scriptures).

I agree in terms of health, vegetarianism is generally better if consumed with care. I do not agree that it is a sin to kill and eat meat. This has nothing to do with human refinement and civilization. Consuming meat is in our heritage as human beings as God made us. Saying that it is a sin to eat meat is spurious nonsense.

Yes, it definitely does accrue karma (please note I am not using the word sin here). Whether you agree with it or not, it does not matter. Karma does not stop accruing if one wins a debate on non-vegetarianism. Neither does it shun away because someone labels it as nonsense.

Heritages are mere practices that have been consistently followed. They are not rules by themselves and neither did God give us all of those; it would do good to remember that.

By saying this or accepting this, it does not infer that some other culture is degraded. After all it is but a matter of karma!
Yes, but implicit is your assumption is that meat eaters are accruing bad karma - this definitely leads to a person like yourself's sub conscious feeling that they are not 'refined' and hence inferior. Same way we have treated the untouchables in our religion, based on this untenable, non sanctioned, weird karmic theory, that is against nature.

You are colouring my words here. I merely state that they are embroiled in their own acts by torturing animals for food. I did mention about refineness, but do not remember saying that it links with inferiority! Let us leave the topic of untouchables for another occasion. Nature itself is due to karma; how can then karma be against nature?

Regards,

 

[vijisesh]

D*a* Sapthajihva,

*h! It loo*s as i* it has *ain*d h*avily sin** my last msg, with so many p*opl* po**ing in : ( i hav* list*d th* *ollowing abst*a*t !)
a) som* a** lin*ing spi*it*ality , *a*mi* *****ts with v*g*ta*ianism .
a) Som* say it is " My wish- my way o* Li** to ***p staying as a v*g*ta*ian " .
b) Also th*** has b**n lin*ing b*tw**n b*ing a ***l* p**son / s*o*nd**l and *ating v*g/non-v*g.
*) Som* hav* q*ot*d *i****stan**s/ g*og*aphi*al lo*ation o* habitats , to b* a **y *a*to* *o* b*ing a v*g o* a non-v*g !
d) Som* say yo* *annot m*ditat* *o* a long tim* i* yo* a** a non-v*g *at** , as yo** dig*stiv* syst*ms d**ing th* tim* o* yo** m*ditation will b* id*nti*ying th* po*tion o* th* animal yo* hav* *at*n ( h*ad o* t*mmy !) and will l*av* yo* **stl*ss dist**bing yo** *on**nt*ation.

Yo* hav* m*ntion*d that th* stat* o* mind is th* d*iving *a*to* that h*lps yo* to ma** a *hoi** b*tw**n b*ing a v*g o* a non-v*g and yo* hav* also stat*d that , i* yo* want to attain mo*sha , happin*ss *o* th* so*l , th*n yo* n**d to ***p an a**o*nt o* th* *a*mi* points .

I totally ag*** to that point ! I* yo* want to ma** yo** so*l happy , b* a v*g*ta*ian , oth** wis* i* yo* want to ma** yo** body happy , yo* *an *at non-v*g b*t ta** *a** o* yo** *hol*st*ol limits !

Many p*opl* who hav* giv*n *p th*i* mat**ialisti* li** in p**s*it o* spi*it*ality hav*
simpl* li**styl*s , d*p*nd on alms ( v*g*ta*ian !) and attain mo*sha !
Many a tim*s w* hav* h*a*d o* *pisod*s in whi*h , wh*n som* non-v*g *ood is o*****d to a sadh* / sanyasi , s**p*isingly it *hang*s to v*g ( *** : y*st** y*a* tamil movi*s) !

And as SGan*san ji m*ntion*d " B*ing a v*g*ta*ian , as long as i don't ,miss any non-v*g*ta*ian , why sho*ld i *v** t*y and b*ing som* dist**ban** to my p*a****l stat* o* int**nal a**ai*s ?"

*o* s**h p*opl* *ating non-v*g is *onst***d *q*ally bad j*st li** d*in*ing al*ohol ( witho*t soda !) o* going a*t** a vilai madh* , *ight !

So th* bottom lin* is

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear vijisesh, am unable to read your post as it appears all garbled with symbols in between. Wouldn't know if it is a temporary problem with the site or whether it is a problem with my laptop?

Could you please re-post your reply again?

 

[Singleliner]

Sapthajiva has a very very valid point to say, and I feel, in process of making money in the west blended with English education and western influence, the whole lot of customs and traditions are getting slaughtered, only to see ,every one going in the Western way.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

My comments below:

Am unable to change the garbled title which reads as 'Dear Shri KRS'

As before, my response in light blue

It is only natural from the view point of a human who shares the same mental capacity as that of animals and acts on instincts rather than discriminatory power. We do not harm the entire plant when we eat vegetables (execpt in some cases), but the life of a plant is much lower than that of animals. Moreover, the gradation of injury varies between an animal and a plant. So it seems that what you are proposing here seems to be much more artificial. Of course eating plants may also incur karma, but we eat plants & veg only for our survival i.e., we choose the mode by which the pain is reduced or is minimal. So the effects of karma are much diminished here. Generally the argument stops here, but there is another thing to it - we must do our nithya karmas regularly as it washes off the such karmas accrued by causing injury to other beings out of an act of survival or unknowingly.
Sir, again, eating anything does not accrue karma. Killing to eat, be it animals, plants and as in the recent past cannibalism even does not accrue any karma. Cannibalism as a practice has mainly stopped because as our ethics and justice evolve we do not practice this. Will this happen to meat eating also over time is an open question. But not on a 'sin' or 'karma' basis. Because there is no karma attached to any action if the act is natural. And there is no such thing as karma accruing out of 'unknowing' actions. By the way, killing an animal quickly for food is not regarded as 'torture' in most religions. You are using words out of your own emotions that are not accepted as true by the majority.
Nobody has devised a grand design on us so that we can eat animals to our heart's content. Looks like this is just another excuse to justify meat eating. I am amused that you equate sacrifice into this context. Perhaps, the intent is different; dont you think so?
There is no need to 'justify' meat eating as it has been the natural norm since our species was born. On the contrary, vegetarian diet is out of the norm and need justification, when it comes to proper nutrition needed for a human body that evolved by eating both meat, grains, nuts and vegetables. Your amusement not withstanding, every culture has incorporated a prayer (including ours) that thanks the lord for the food, and consider that food as a 'sacrifice'. The intent is different only if one kills not for food and that is called 'murder'.

You say: eating is like offering foods to the gods - I say: If it is so, then does it imply that you have to effect the maximum torture out of a being for the sacrifice? As if no other means were available??
Killing for food is never considered a 'torture'. This is your own outlook, because you do not understand the difference between dharmic kill and adharmic kill. Killing for food is always dharmic.

You say: the sin of killing is washed away when we eat (konnaal paavam thinnaal poochu) - I ask: Who says so? It is probably an extension of your imagination. Can you point me out anything in the scriptures that states the above???
This is a very popular saying in Tamil. As I have said, I do not need to explain non vegetarianism, which is natural. It is you who claim that non vegetarianism is a sin and accrues karma. What is natural need not be explained. What is unnatural, which is making a a whole species of omnivores in nature in to herbivores, claiming that it is 'unnatural' to kill an animal for food. Our svabhave is to eat meat. It is like a lion thinking that it is a cow. Just because our mind has certain empathy does not make it natural for it to think opposite to what has been true for millenia.

You are blindly questioning acts; looks like you are arguing my cause. I have been saying that it is the intent which matters. If there are no means of survival other than killing animals, then as a last resort one could probably agree that animals may be used for subsisting, but no more than that. We are discussing in a topic where nomadic life is long gone and a virtual world has set in. Survival is no longer the key - various modern techniques of cultivation have come in. Claiming that eating meat is for one's existence is a poor argument. You are skating on thin ice here.
Technology is helping - now you farm animals for food. But no one has the right to impose a particular diet on others, when for millenia we were omnivores and just because we can raise vegetable, we say we should be herbivores based on some unfounded theology! Eating meat is a birth right for all humans and has no sin/karma attached. If some do not want to do it, it is their choice. But do not argue on any theological reasons for doindg so, because there is none.

There is an 'ahaara niyamam' by Swami Desikan. If we cannot live up to those expectations, then at least let us refrain from killing animals for food.
My issue is not with our Brahminical culture which forbids meat for us. My issue is extending it to the entire world, arguing it is a universal sin and looking at meat eaters as though they are wantonly killing.

I did not know that you were an authority on the scriptures, but I have to say that I wrote the above based on lectures that I have heard from learned pandits (who were great exponents of the scriptures).
I did not say I am. But you are the one who said that our scriptures say so! So, you can not exactly say where in scriptures it says that killing an animal for food is a sin or accrues bad karma?
Yes, it definitely does accrue karma (please note I am not using the word sin here). Whether you agree with it or not, it does not matter. Karma does not stop accruing if one wins a debate on non-vegetarianism. Neither does it shun away because someone labels it as nonsense.
Again, when one can not substantiates, one repeats the 'truth' of one's statement. You are right! Karma will not accrue just because you say it does.

Heritages are mere practices that have been consistently followed. They are not rules by themselves and neither did God give us all of those; it would do good to remember that.
Oh, then why, all this hoopla about Tamil Brahmins abandoning the traditions? What is good for the goose must be good for the geese also! Imagine tomorrow you are forced to give up your vegetarianism? How would you feel? Then why would you want to label the non vegetarians, who have been after all following the traditions of their forefathers for millenia, for which all our bodies are designed for by Him, as doing something bad and non refined? I think your mind is so refined, it can not anymore figure out what is natural and what is unnatural.

You are colouring my words here. I merely state that they are embroiled in their own acts by torturing animals for food. I did mention about refineness, but do not remember saying that it links with inferiority! Let us leave the topic of untouchables for another occasion. Nature itself is due to karma; how can then karma be against nature?
Sir, nature is NOT due to karma. It is the other way around. Nature support Dharma. Anything AGAINST nature is adharma, which creates bad karma. No where in any religious tradition, including our own where killing for food (except for cows in our religion) is viewed as 'sin' or generating 'bad karma'. All this stems out of personal beliefs about all killings, based out of no broad theological backing.

Regards,

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Sapthajiva is right, because, if we agree on killing for food, then Karma becomes a flawed theory.

Greetings!

Karma is indeed a flawed theory, but leaving that aside for another thread, let us examine a little further, why or why not, killing for food cannot be agreed to.

Are you saying killing for food cannot be agreed to, but killing for some other reason more noble than eating can be? The reason I ask this is, in our modern life we kill not just for eating but for many other purposes. For what purposes would killing animals be agreeable?

Would it be agreeable for producing such things as footwear, ladies purses and other accessories? Perhaps killing is alright for testing the efficacy of life saving drugs? What if it is not life-saving but alleviates some sort of pain and this enhances our quality of life? What about testing safety of cosmetic products such as lotion?

In most of these animal experimentations that are routinely carried out the animals are treated no better than the factory farms somebody mentioned earlier. Many of these types of instances are by far much worse than butchering animals in truly family-farm type operations for food.

I am all for vegetarianism. I try to fashion my diet as close to vegan as my wife would tolerate -- she is also vegetarian, but the ususal South Indian kind. But, IMHO, objecting to killing for food sounds quite hypocritical, if I may be so bold to use the H-word.

Cheers!

 

[Eastern Mind]

I'm beginning to see comparisons between the veg vs non-veg argument and the smoking versus non-smoking argument.

Firstly, you simply don't have to tell a smoker he shouldn't smoke. Even though he may not admit it, he knows. The knowledge is all over the place. Same with vegetarian diet. It is scientifically all over the place that a vegetarian diet is healthier not only for the individual, but also the planet. Refusal to see it or arguing against it is just an excuse to maintain a habit. In cultures that rely on meat as a primary source of food (mostly native or aboriginal hunting and gathering societies not very common in this day and age) they normally eat the innards as well as the muscles in order to get a more balanced diet.

Secondly, there are comparisons historically for the health argument. Back in the 1940s cigarettes were actually promoted as healthy. Medicine, and science, over time, demonstrated that this simply wasn't true, leading to a progressively more knowledgeable public in which smoking (at least here in the west) is in decline and will perhaps disappear completely in another 50 years or so. Vegetarian argument is about 50 years behind that one, but with more and more scientific studies linking meat to cancer, high blood pressure, high cholesteral etc., this too will continue declining for health reasons. Even without turning vegetarian, many many westerners have cut down their levels of meat consumption.

Aum Namasivaya