Brahmins eating non-vegeterian

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Even the staunchest vegetarian proponent will, if he/she is starved for about 10 or 15 days, eagerly eat any NV food if that is the only thing available then. We should recall Vishwamitra eating the dog-flesh from the hands of a Chandala. All this "pavishu" about vegetarianism of brahmins is only skin-deep.

I have heard from my father that a Brahmin had refused life saving medicine since it contained animal ingredients. So your above judgement may not be valid as some kind of generalization. Maybe your statement could be applicable for those who live life as they wish and not as per scriptural guidelines... If you quote Viswamitra, there is also Rantideva, you see.

 

[auh]

dear sangom,

i tend to agree with you.

in 1972 there was a plane crash in the andean mountains of chile. isolated. rescue came only 72 days later. the survivors literally ate the flesh of the dead to keep them alive. here is one of the stories.

I-eat-piece-friend-survive-Torment-1972-Andes-plane-crash-survivor-haunted-ordeal-40-years-laterl

...and how many of them were Brahmins?

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

No doubt in some medicines, animal derived ingredients
form part of that, but not always. Similarly egg forms part
of many items.

 

[Nara]

I have heard from my father that a Brahmin had refused life saving medicine since it contained animal ingredients. So your above judgement may not be valid as some kind of generalization. Maybe your statement could be applicable for those who live life as they wish and not as per scriptural guidelines... If you quote Viswamitra, there is also Rantideva, you see.

auh, you heard from your father that there was one Brahmin who refused life saving medicine and that is sufficient to object to the point Sangom was trying to make???

The secular Brahmins, the wannabe Brahmins, are confused about the reason Brahmins are somewhat vegetarians, i.e. vegetarian + milk products. It is nothing to do with compassion towards our fellow animal species sharing this earth with us. The orthodox Brahmins, the real ones, know it all too well. It is all about the delusionary notion of satvik food. The foods excluded are not just meat, but also vegetables, not only onions and garlic but also a range of other vegetables including, but not limited to, white eggplant (brinjal) -- all these are supposed to be non-satvik. Even the most orthodox of Acharyas of Brahmnical Matams have no qualms about using animal products in their day-to-day routine, silk and deer skin to name a couple. It is not about compassion, it has never been that.

The fact is Brahmins of yore, the ones who gave the "gift" of Sanatana Dharma, relished meat, not just any meat but beef, and horse meat and many other kinds of meat. Not many would have not heard the story of the Brahminical superstar Agastya polishing off Vaathapi the goat -- was it a case of meat eating or cannibalism?

The Brahmins who faced Vegetarian NBs, like the ones in the South, gave up meat to stay one step ahead. They didn't give up animal fat because their rivals, the vegetarian dravidians, consumed it.

This is not a B or an NB thing. As humans sharing this earth with other species, do we have the right to inflict unnatural cruelty upon other animals in order to satisfy our taste buds? Brahmnisim does not care about questions like this. Rational human animals have a duty to consider this question seriously.

best wishes ...

 

[sangom]

auh, you heard from your father that there was one Brahmin who refused life saving medicine and that is sufficient to object to the point Sangom was trying to make???

The secular Brahmins, the wannabe Brahmins, are confused about the reason Brahmins are somewhat vegetarians, i.e. vegetarian + milk products. It is nothing to do with compassion towards our fellow animal species sharing this earth with us. The orthodox Brahmins, the real ones, know it all too well. It is all about the delusionary notion of satvik food. The foods excluded are not just meat, but also vegetables, not only onions and garlic but also a range of other vegetables including, but not limited to, white eggplant (brinjal) -- all these are supposed to be non-satvik. Even the most orthodox of Acharyas of Brahmnical Matams have no qualms about using animal products in their day-to-day routine, silk and deer skin to name a couple. It is not about compassion, it has never been that.

The fact is Brahmins of yore, the ones who gave the "gift" of Sanatana Dharma, relished meat, not just any meat but beef, and horse meat and many other kinds of meat. Not many would have not heard the story of the Brahminical superstar Agastya polishing off Vaathapi the goat -- was it a case of meat eating or cannibalism?

The Brahmins who faced Vegetarian NBs, like the ones in the South, gave up meat to stay one step ahead. They didn't give up animal fat because their rivals, the vegetarian dravidians, consumed it.

This is not a B or an NB thing. As humans sharing this earth with other species, do we have the right to inflict unnatural cruelty upon other animals in order to satisfy our taste buds? Brahmnisim does not care about questions like this. Rational human animals have a duty to consider this question seriously.

best wishes ...

Dear Shri Nara,

I am seeing the forum only now and I am thankful to you for the very effective reply to Shri auh. I could not have done even anywhere near to what you have.

The problem, as I often say, is that many of our friends here who carry the (mistaken) notion of they being the true upholders of hinduism, sanaatana dharma, brahminic ways of living, etc., have no inputs other than the most superficial. They do not seem to consider a deep study of our scriptures or even ancient indian literature.

Shri auh forgets that Rantideva could also have tried to eat NV food if that was what he could get after weeks of continuous starvation; modern research tells that complete starvation, without water, will kill a human being within 4 or 5 days. So, the Rantideva story has to be taken with a pinch of salt and even then it is irrelevant to the present topic.

 

[auh]

Shri Nara,

Shri Sangom's post - >

Even the staunchest vegetarian proponent will, if he/she is starved for about 10 or 15 days, eagerly eat any NV food if that is the only thing available then. We should recall Vishwamitra eating the dog-flesh from the hands of a Chandala. All this "pavishu" about vegetarianism of brahmins is only skin-deep.

My reply ->

I have heard from my father that a Brahmin had refused life saving medicine since it contained animal ingredients. So your above judgement may not be valid as some kind of generalization. Maybe your statement could be applicable for those who live life as they wish and not as per scriptural guidelines... If you quote Viswamitra, there is also Rantideva, you see.

Your response ->

auh, you heard from your father that there was one Brahmin who refused life saving medicine and that is sufficient to object to the point Sangom was trying to make???

I dont see any actual proof for his "skin-deep" theory except his sarcasm that it is "pavishu". Do you? In that context, both our statements stand equal ground.

The secular Brahmins, the wannabe Brahmins, are confused about the reason Brahmins are somewhat vegetarians, i.e. vegetarian + milk products. It is nothing to do with compassion towards our fellow animal species sharing this earth with us. The orthodox Brahmins, the real ones, know it all too well. It is all about the delusionary notion of satvik food. The foods excluded are not just meat, but also vegetables, not only onions and garlic but also a range of other vegetables including, but not limited to, white eggplant (brinjal) -- all these are supposed to be non-satvik. Even the most orthodox of Acharyas of Brahmnical Matams have no qualms about using animal products in their day-to-day routine, silk and deer skin to name a couple. It is not about compassion, it has never been that.

The fact is Brahmins of yore, the ones who gave the "gift" of Sanatana Dharma, relished meat, not just any meat but beef, and horse meat and many other kinds of meat. Not many would have not heard the story of the Brahminical superstar Agastya polishing off Vaathapi the goat -- was it a case of meat eating or cannibalism?

The Brahmins who faced Vegetarian NBs, like the ones in the South, gave up meat to stay one step ahead. They didn't give up animal fat because their rivals, the vegetarian dravidians, consumed it.

This is not a B or an NB thing. As humans sharing this earth with other species, do we have the right to inflict unnatural cruelty upon other animals in order to satisfy our taste buds? Brahmnisim does not care about questions like this. Rational human animals have a duty to consider this question seriously.

How can you be so sure that the abstinence to NV food is not due to compassion when the underlying principle of "dharma" itself is founded on the maximum benefit and minimum harm to living beings? Insteand of saying compassion, they have presented in a different form - satvic.

Again I have heard - which you may not consider sufficient proof - that only the skin of dead animals was used.

I have grown up listening to much of the puranic stories, so Agastyar polishing the asura Vaathapi cannot be simply equated to cannibalism - it was an end to a menace. I wonder you know how Vaathapi revived himself. Also Agastyar cannot be equated to a normal person; he is, as you rightly said, a superstar!

I agree the point about compassion, but the rest of your post seems to be simply conjectures...

Best Regards,

 

[auh]

The problem, as I often say, is that many of our friends here who carry the (mistaken) notion of they being the true upholders of hinduism, sanaatana dharma, brahminic ways of living, etc., have no inputs other than the most superficial. They do not seem to consider a deep study of our scriptures or even ancient indian literature.

Sir, the point is simple - I objected to your statement, which was a sweeping statement of sorts, that even a staunchest brahmin cannot refrain from eating meat should it so happen that he is starved for several days. Where is the question of brahmin superiority in this? You are seeing ghosts everywhere.

Shri auh forgets that Rantideva could also have tried to eat NV food if that was what he could get after weeks of continuous starvation; modern research tells that complete starvation, without water, will kill a human being within 4 or 5 days. So, the Rantideva story has to be taken with a pinch of salt and even then it is irrelevant to the present topic.

As Navjot Singh Siddhu used to say - "IFs and BUTs, and POTs and PANs"... What you have said is purely your speculation, and does not hold water.

Thank you.

 

[sangom]

Sir, the point is simple - I objected to your statement, which was a sweeping statement of sorts, that even a staunchest brahmin cannot refrain from eating meat should it so happen that he is starved for several days. Where is the question of brahmin superiority in this? You are seeing ghosts everywhere.

Shri auh,

There was no mention, direct or implied, about brahmin superiority in my post. What I said was - in relation to this point here - that you have a firm notion that brahmins have been "milkarians" (vegetarians who have no taboo for milk of cows, goats, sheep, etc.) from time immemorial and that this notion will be found wrong if only you had taken the trouble to read our scriptures without any bias or partiality in your mind. For instance Satapatha BraahmaNa III-1-2-21 tells us that Yaajnavalkya said—"I eat beef provided it is tender (anSaLa). Manu Smriti (V-30) states, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.” And this is not for non-brahmins only or something like that. You will get detailed info from Manu Smriti, Chapter V, Sloka 11 and onwards. In sloka 19, Manu says, "A twice-born man who knowingly eats mushrooms, a village-pig, garlic, a village-cock, onions, or leeks, will become an outcast."
(छत्राकं विड्वराहं च लशुनं ग्रामकुक्कुटम् ।
पलाण्डुं गृञ्जनं चैव मत्या जग्ध्वा पतेद्द्विजः ॥)

Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) says, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraaddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

So, if only anyone takes the trouble of reading our scriptures and not stop with what our parents told/taught us in the present day context, one will find that the so-called pseudo-vegetarianism (because we tabras happily consume all milk products although its origin is animal and not vegetarian) now prevalent among tabras is a mere outer layer or facade. I am not saying that all of us should start eating meat from tomorrow; what I say is "let us be content with whatever food habits we now have but let us not make our so-called vegetarianism as a sort of brahmin virtue or even a saastra greatness which we tabras alone abide by. Let us not look down upon people who are NVs even though we may not even like the look of the NV food personally.

As Navjot Singh Siddhu used to say - "IFs and BUTs, and POTs and PANs"... What you have said is purely your speculation, and does not hold water.

Thank you.

There is hardly any speculation. The Rantideva story is at best a fantasy story because he is supposed to have starved for a long number of weeks - depending upon the story source. If Rantideva had been fully starving, without water even, then the story verges on the impossible. Even if he had been having water to drink (because he was also a king, the story goes!) if he had obtained only some beef preparation after 48 days of complete starvation (instead of the paayasam etc., he is supposed to have got) most probably he would have eaten it, I say. This story is like a fable and if such a fable can be held to be a true incident, then the possibility of Rantideva getting meat after 48 days of complete starvation cannot be simply wished away simply based on some Siddhu's remarks.

 

[sadasivam.sridharan]

V or N V the debate has no point of convergence, something like debates the political leaders have on TV channels.I think it is better to leave it to the individuals discretion and conviction.Instead of talking about hypothetical cases of non availability of alternatives, in the present context when there is a choice, still people like to have let them have and enjoy.

 

[Brahmanyan]

V or N V the debate has no point of convergence, something like debates the political leaders have on TV channels.I think it is better to leave it to the individuals discretion and conviction.Instead of talking about hypothetical cases of non availability of alternatives, in the present context when there is a choice, still people like to have let them have and enjoy.

Agreed. Food should be left to the individual's choice, depending on the taste, availability, culture, tradition and conviction.
I have known many Muslims families practice vegetarianism for generations simply because of the Society in which they were living were vegetarians. Let us not bring Religion into the subject, because Dharma Sastras do not prohibit eating non- vegetarian food. I can quote many directives from Dharma Sastras for and against eating non-vegetarian food. But it has no relevance in today's world.

 

[auh]

There was no mention, direct or implied, about brahmin superiority in my post. What I said was - in relation to this point here - that you have a firm notion that brahmins have been "milkarians" (vegetarians who have no taboo for milk of cows, goats, sheep, etc.) from time immemorial and that this notion will be found wrong if only you had taken the trouble to read our scriptures without any bias or partiality in your mind. For instance Satapatha BraahmaNa III-1-2-21 tells us that Yaajnavalkya said—"I eat beef provided it is tender (anSaLa). Manu Smriti (V-30) states, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.” And this is not for non-brahmins only or something like that. You will get detailed info from Manu Smriti, Chapter V, Sloka 11 and onwards. In sloka 19, Manu says, "A twice-born man who knowingly eats mushrooms, a village-pig, garlic, a village-cock, onions, or leeks, will become an outcast."
(छत्राकं विड्वराहं च लशुनं ग्रामकुक्कुटम् ।
पलाण्डुं गृञ्जनं चैव मत्या जग्ध्वा पतेद्द्विजः ॥)

Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) says, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraaddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

So, if only anyone takes the trouble of reading our scriptures and not stop with what our parents told/taught us in the present day context, one will find that the so-called pseudo-vegetarianism (because we tabras happily consume all milk products although its origin is animal and not vegetarian) now prevalent among tabras is a mere outer layer or facade. I am not saying that all of us should start eating meat from tomorrow; what I say is "let us be content with whatever food habits we now have but let us not make our so-called vegetarianism as a sort of brahmin virtue or even a saastra greatness which we tabras alone abide by. Let us not look down upon people who are NVs even though we may not even like the look of the NV food personally.

Shri Sangom,

Do you believe in all that these smritis and srutis say? I am asking this since you have taken the trouble of getting some quotes and educating me that the history of brahmins is not what it seems to be. Since you have quoted what these scriptures say, you seem to believe in them and hence my doubt.

There is hardly any speculation. The Rantideva story is at best a fantasy story because he is supposed to have starved for a long number of weeks - depending upon the story source. If Rantideva had been fully starving, without water even, then the story verges on the impossible. Even if he had been having water to drink (because he was also a king, the story goes!) if he had obtained only some beef preparation after 48 days of complete starvation (instead of the paayasam etc., he is supposed to have got) most probably he would have eaten it, I say. This story is like a fable and if such a fable can be held to be a true incident, then the possibility of Rantideva getting meat after 48 days of complete starvation cannot be simply wished away simply based on some Siddhu's remarks.

Let us have some equanimity here - can you please point out which stories are fantasy/fables from puranas/epics and which are not? Seems you would like to quote Viswamitra's actions to prove your point but cry foul against Rantideva !

Notwithstanding your reply to this post, my objection to your generalization that "even a staunchest brahmin would yield to his tongue" stands.

Regards,

 

[கால பைரவன்]

It is amusing to see the same set of arguments repeated here. That the non-Brahmins take to vegetarianism because of compassion but the Brahmins do only because of blind faith is pure conjecture and just a reflection of malice and condescending attitude that some have repeatedly displayed against Brahmins. Even if this argument is taken to be true, this blind faith has been and continues to be quite successful in keeping a set of people vegetarians for generations. I have seen many a "rational/compassionate" people who take to vegetarianism but not even able to influence their own kith and kin, which perhaps is the reason for their grudging.

 

[Raji Ram]

I'm not Tamil, myself Punjabi, .......
It is all Humanity & Social Commitment which creates a great culture.
தமிழ் பிராமணர்கள் - ஒரு கிரேட் கலாச்சாரம்.

Welcome Kanchan to our forum.

How come you write in Tamil? Do you speak Tamil?

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

As regards Hindus are concerned, violence is strictly
prohibited and one has to observe ahimsa as far as possible.
In fact, nonviolence is the highest principle one has to comply
with. Generally, our scriptures do advocate a vegetarian diet.
If I am correct, there is a mention in the Manu Smriti, which I
read recently in a magazine. Dharmasastra reflects this
point too. Above all, Hindu dharma do not permit slaughtering
animals and meat eating.

Balasubramanian

 

[weblogic]

IMHO that what Shri Sangom has contributed here stands true here,
Analyse the vedas esoterically or sciendtifically human evolution thrived only with Non Veg and after colonization and dialiects and farming techniques the civilized may have started practising Vegan

Also what Shri Sangom suggests in the previous post also would be true in case of most of us(Considering all the noice would wade away if really one has to survive which we are programmed to * our selfish genes are created to survive)

Shri Sangom,

Do you believe in all that these smritis and srutis say? I am asking this since you have taken the trouble of getting some quotes and educating me that the history of brahmins is not what it seems to be. Since you have quoted what these scriptures say, you seem to believe in them and hence my doubt.

Let us have some equanimity here - can you please point out which stories are fantasy/fables from puranas/epics and which are not? Seems you would like to quote Viswamitra's actions to prove your point but cry foul against Rantideva !

Notwithstanding your reply to this post, my objection to your generalization that "even a staunchest brahmin would yield to his tongue" stands.

Regards,

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Generally vegetarian food is accepted for various reasons.
Besides, religious belief is one of the aspects. One has to
understand the animal freedom and rights too. From the point
of view health-related, it is not advisable to eat non-veg.
These days even consumers of non-veg slowly reduce the
eating habits of non-veg items from health angle. In our religion,
there are a number of diet available which can produce same or
equivalent energy to the health. Assuming egg is a dairy product,
some eat without any question. For some, diet includes
eggs and dairy products as a routine. Besides, tinned food
products are clearly marked to indicate veg or non-veg, for
easy identification. As regards Jains, vegetarian is mandatory
and they have no choice. They do not even kill a rat or keep
a medicine to trap a rat.

Balasubramanian

 

[lawiyer]

Dear Dinesh,

My user name is 'lawiyer', short name is Murthy. I can confirm your observations. Tamil brahmins eating meat is remarked upon because they come from a long tradition of VEGETARIANISM. Among Tamil people, there are also Saiva Pillais and Saiva Mudaliars, all have a strong and long tradition of vegetarian diet. Sadly, their youngsters are also into meat eating these days.

According to my elders, vegetarianism in India may well go back to the time of Gautama Siddhartha - 'the Buddha'!! He echoed enlightened Hindu opinion of his times when he objected to animals sacrificed in Vedic rituals and also Hindu tribal ceremonies.

Focusing first on the dietary aspects, I would say MEAT is NOT required for a human to be healthy and strong. A balanced vegetarian diet saw sportsmen like Carl Lewis, the Afro-American runner to excel at the highest level. Many Western sportspersons, too many to name, are currently strict vegetarians.

Vitamin B-12 is the only ingredient, as far as I know, that is not as easily found in vegetables as in meat. BUT the synthetic B-12 is as good as what is found in meat, if it is taken along with B-6, which most 'B Complex' tablets have. For instance, I take one such tablet once in three days. I believe, I am a healthy vegetarian, although not a 'vegan' ( that refers to someone who avoids milk products on top of meat).

Meat in most countries of the world comes with several unwanted, risky enzymes injected into the live animals to stop them catching diseases, such as 'foot and mouth'. They are also 'fattened' with artificial 'growth harmones'. Sadly, all of these 'extras' end up in the body of those who eat the meat.

There is a theory, yet to be confirmed, that long meat-eating burdens the stomach, the liver in particular, and kidneys too. Meat eaters may expose themselves to greater 'wear and tear' than vegetarians. It is like burning a high heat-generating fuel as compared to a light, cooler fuel. The furnace which is experiencing greater heat will be affected by all that excess heat.

Returning to the more aesthetic or religious angle, your brahmin friends should be asked to witness a goat being killed for its meat. Perhaps, some of them may find even the slaughter of a chicken disturbing. The blood, fat and shit that flows out of the dying animal is never aesthetic.

Our brahmin ancestors believed that a meat diet produced more intense passions, inducing lust, anger and vengefulness - all of them leading to complications in life. I am not suggesting vegetarians do not get angry or are free from lust. It is a help if the diet is NOT contributing to heighten those feelings.

They also believed that a SATHVIC diet would help them to be more intelligent. My elders used to say to children, "Vendakkai sappidu, moolai adhikamagum, kanakku nanna varum" [ Eat vendakkai to increase your intelligence, also your Maths will improve]

I will stop here. Hopefully, I have made one or two useful points.

I appreciate your 'vairagyam' in sticking to a vegetarian diet.

Best Wishes,
Murthy

 

[kanchankapoor]

Thanks to Google Translate. I dont speak Tamil.

Trying to learn, but honestly...becoming very difficult for me.

 

[sathya_9]

brahmins by there own act of eating non veg put them in humiliating scene as it is scene in vishwaroobam.

 

[weblogic]

No Proclaimed Brahmin would take NV in their bandwagon. Only those who have abandoned the Brahminic outlook would dare to do so.
Its again ones choice to and should not not be bundled and in general as previous posts suggest choose the better way for your life without affecting and inflicting others.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

brahmins by there own act of eating non veg put them in humiliating scene as it is scene in vishwaroobam.

No doubt sometimes media creates such a situation.

Balasubramanian NR

 

[Raji Ram]

brahmins by there own act of eating non veg put them in humiliating scene as it is scene in vishwaroobam.

​I guess only those who do not eat non veg feel humiliated! :humble:

Those who eat seem to enjoy such scenes!!

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Media and TV Serials spoils the younger generation these days.

Balasubramanian

 

[sangom]

Media and TV Serials spoils the younger generation these days.

Balasubramanian

Shri nannilam sir,

Brahmana value system has undergone sea changes during the last two decades or so, with very many of our youngsters emigrating to foreign (western, mainly) countries and settling down there, establishing their families and bringing up their offsprings there. Necessarily, these young couples have to make very many changes to the original, home-made tabra life-style and value systems if they and their kids have to survive and flourish in those exotic milieu. Eating NV food, drinking or even getting drunk, drink and barbecue parties, and so on thus usually become part of their life style there. A good percentage of such people will not admit to any of these "deviations" when they visit India on vacations for fear of causing grief to their parents, elders, etc.

So long as our tabra agenda remains one of material prosperity of our children and our finding satisfaction by bragging about the trickle-down effects of such prosperity to ourselves (apartments in posh condominia, or super-rich gated communities, latest & high-cost cars and the best FMCG brands, and so on) I feel we should be humble and honest enough to admit the changes in our value systems and move on ahead, instead of making a mountain out of such mole-hills such as eating NV food. If we cannot stand NV, let us not eat, that's all; let us not bother whether other brahmins are eating NV or not.

 

[indianassault]

Dear Shri Chandrasekaran,


If you truly want to be a brahman, get back to a Vedapatashala immediately, learn vedas and sanskrit as best as you can, adhere to the nityakarmaanushtaana prescribed under the sootra your family has been following and then think of one of the permitted jobs for brahmins which are —sva dharmo brāhmaṇasyādhyayanam adhyāpanam yajanam yājanam dānam pratigrahāsca (arthaśāstra I-3-5 to7)

The permitted sva-dharma for brahmins are learning and teaching of vedas, performing oneself and on behalf of others of yajnas, offering and receiving gifts or dānam,

LOL. That is not the definition or description of a Brahman. ANy one who does good deeds, worships the almighty and doesnt commit sins can become a Brahman.( Source- Sri Krishna) If only all of the people adhere to sva dharmas....world would be a much peaceful place to live in..