Who are we?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

KRS-ji
I find it a little odd that the elephant is classified as tamasic -
it is a vegetarian, it is a very intelligent animal, and it is generally quite gentle ...
I am also curious about Soma - I realize that it is extolled in the Vedas.
But I have heard people say "Soma-paanam maha-paapam" - so which has primacy?
Trivial maybe - but it piqued my curiosity.

Dear born_again_aiyer_maami Ji,

The reason, I cited the example of the domesticated animals and their supposed gunas is to precisely raise and think about the question you have raised here. I don't know the answer either and I have wondered too. As Pappan Ji says, it may be because of the 'sloth', but then I always thought that an elephant can move fast if he wanted to and more importantly, he is very intelligent. My other supposition is that he is almost black in colour!

Here is the Rg Veda about Soma:

Rg. Veda 10.119
1. Indeed my mind would give horses and cows. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
2. The draughts lifted me up like the buffeting winds. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
3. The draughts shook me as swift horses shake a chariot. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
4. The hymn came to me like a cow to its dear calf. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
5. Like a carpenter shaping the body of a chariot, with my heart I shape the verse. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
6. For me the five great races are not even as a mote in my eye. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
7. Both heaven and earth are not equal to my other wing. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
8. Now in greatness I surpass the heavens and this great earth. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
9. Verily I would move around this earth, now here, now there. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
10. Verily I would bat this earth around, now here, now there. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
11. My one wing is in the sky, the other one drags (on the earth) below. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
12. I am great among the great, I rise up among the clouds. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.
13. I am the oblation-bearer, I go eagerly to the gods with the oblation. Kuwit! I have drunk much soma.

There are two differing opinions about Soma, the drink. One is that it was brewed from the juice of the vine of the same name and the other is that the juice itself was hallucegenic (like some mushrooms).

Regardless, it is not difficult to see why the later Brahmins would prohibit the drinking of it. It is not considered sattvic. So, I think that the drinking of it is tied to Paapam, to make sure that folks would not drink it out of fear.

By the way, another interesting tid bit. Zoarashtrians of Iran, who some believe have common vedic ancestry with us (we worshipped Indra, and they adopted Varuna as their Chief of Devas) also cite this drink.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Kashyap Ji,

I wish all of our brahmin brethren understand that our scriptures as metaphors to treat everyone as equal. Our religion in fact teaches us to do the 'vicharam' on the basis of one supreme knowledge: that He has created the Universe and in each and every molecule in this Universe, He resides. This is the fundamental truth.

Ours is the only religion that is not 'rigid'. As the Lord says in Sri Gita, 'if you think you know me, then you don't'. So, necessarily, we will not know Him by our minds, which is but the servant of our senses.

Karma, Dharma and Varna, unfortunately have, in my opinion, been mis-interpreted for various reasons, and so we have the societal 'mental' problems we have today. Believe me, I am not trying to put down any one's faith here. Each of us has the right to believe in different facet of our religion, based on our upbringing, but no one has the right to 'hurt' a fellow Hindu.

So, by my postings here, if I can bring together different sections of our community to understand each other, then I would consider my mission accomplished here.

Thank you for your posting.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[murali]

kRS sir,
"treat every one as equal". is that really possible? i am not talking about castes here.Treat everyone with respect,not to be prejudiced against anyone would be appropriate .

i am not sure that the immanence of God has anything to do with the issue at hand.For instance,the dvaitins would emphasise the transcendence of God.They would intrepret the 'antaryamin' as different from the jiva.

 

[silverfox]

Hello Naras!
Are you related to one of our members, N. Suresh?

--NARAS --just like in U.K. there is an unwritten constitution, it is an unwritten code of conduct for bramins for several centuries, that bramins have to follow a diet based on pure vegeteranism. i dont think there is any need for 'proof' or 'evidence' for this!

there is nothing wrong in quoting sources. but please do not misquote. this sort of campaign will only help 'rationalists' and will also ruin the purpose of this forum.

 

[silverfox]

Dear KRS:

1. Just what is 'soma paanam'? what was it made from? Surely they didn't have any grapes to make wine from it!!

2. What is the exact period Rg Veda was written?

 

[hariharan1972]

Soma paanam ?

Silverfox,

It is clearly evident from your question that while you are in chennai you haven't visited TASMAC which is where "Soma paanam" is still being served. Or so claims Mr M K !!!!!

Apologies KRS sir, i know this is a serious post, just wanted to have a gentle rib at MK.

On a serious note, is "Soma paanam" same as "Amudham" the elixir of life ?

 

[kashyap]

musings

In the practical space, for the day-to-day life including day-to-day worship and spiritual practice, I agree with pappanji’s definition regarding equality.

I hope my postings are not providing any distractions.

But looks like now we have started treading on sensitive zone.

Veg/ Non-veg
Drinking/ teetotaler

And Of course Dwaita/ adwaita /vishishtadwaita.


I consider the last more worthy of discussion now as it is to do more with basic philosophy.

I come from smartha tradition and follow adi shankara. As you know he preached advaita. Personally I find dwaita/vishishtadwaita more romantic and practicable for most of the people.
At an advanced stage, you can choose to remain in dwaita mode or advaita mode.
But to me if I really think deep advaita is ultimate (sorry if I am ruffling any feather here). But the reasoning is as follows:

If God and the jiva and universe are different, then from what material did god create it?
Does it mean something can exist outside god? Then where did it come from?
It is not like me building a house. In that case you can say the bricks and cement are outside of me and somebody else had manufactured it and I used them to build the house.
But that is not the case with God, isn’t it? Nobody gave him/her raw material or supplied manufactured goods such as stars, planets or hydrogen, helium etc to create the universe.
Even if we say that ok, he created them out of his will, then where did the atoms come from ? How can it come from outside of him? Again, after creating the universe how can he exist outside of the things in it?
If god exists outside of the things he created , then there is something else which is encompassing both the god and his creation. This would mean that something else is bigger than god. That would be a paradox isn't it ?


So if I think deeply advaita makes sense to me. But it is very difficult to reach the stage of Advaita.. You need to have devotion to reach that level. Devotion can exist only when there are TWO not ONE. Even Adi shankara has composed so many devotional shlokas.
Hence dwaita and vishishtadwaita are practical and need to be followed till almost the end if not the end state.

Many saints even after reaching the final state choose to staying dwaita mode rather than merge into infinity forever. ( Actually merging into infinity does not meant that the individuality is lost but the consciousness expands into superconsciousness ).

Actually the whole thing is beyond my words and my senses to describe as KRSji also pointed out.
They say "kandavar vindadhillai Vindavar Kandadhillai"
-- Those who say, never saw
Those who saw, never say.

Of course I have never seen or experienced it. just read things here and there

Hope I did not say too much.. and hope it did not provide any distractions.

 

[murali]

kashyap,
i think let us stick to original sources.
what prompted me to react?i feel to respect others,we dont have to to resort to God residing in every own's hearts.Of course,the Supreme Lord asserts so in the Gita.But it is so much beyond me.May be i was exposing my callowness.

 

[kashyap]

sure pappanji

Sure pappanji. Will do

 

[NARAS]

SIR - plS. read the following -

"Having well considered the origin of flesh foods, and the cruelty of fettering & slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh"

MANUSMIRITHI 5.49

"You must not use your god given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever" YAJUR VEDA, 12.32)

"By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation"
(MANUSMRITHI 6.60)

"The purchaser of flesh performes himsa(violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying & killing the animal. Thus there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it , he who cuts of the limb of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it - all of these are considered to be meat eaters" (MAHABHARATBA ANU. 115:40)

"One should refrain from eating all kinds of meat as such eating involves killing & leads to karmic bondage (bandha)" MANUSMIRITHI

"Only the animal killer cannot relish the message of absolute truth"
MAHARAJA PARIKSHIT, last of vedic kings, in VEDAS

"i do regard Varnasharama as a healthy division of work based on birth" MAHATMA GANDHI

Pls. also read WHAT IS HINDU DHARMA BY Mahatma gandhiji, published by govt. of india.

pls. also visit http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/soma, where it has been said that in ATHARVA VEDA, medicinal value of soma has been mentioned. so i surmise, like in present day where we use alcoholic contents in allopathic medicines upto a limit, vedic bramins also should have used soma in limited quantities as a medicine.

& also http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/9/Veggie.htm

'He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures live in misery in whatever species he may take his birth' Mahabharat 115.47

'Those high souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental & physical strength & memory should abstain from acts of injury' Mahabharat 18.115.8

'The very name of cow is 'Aghnya' (not to be killed) indicating that they should never be slaughtered. who, then could slay them? surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits a serious crime' Mahabharat Shanthiparv.262.47

'the original vedic system is actually quite different from contemporary hinduism. Both the old and the new,however, converge harmoniously in regard to vegeteranism. Lone before st. francis was declared patron saint of animals, the sages of ancient india had already recognised spirituality in all living species. Vedic texts even describe incarnations of god in animal forms. Vedas even acknowledge ability of ordinary animals to achieve exalted states of spirituality. Here, then is a religious tradition that emphasises not only vegeteranism, but also the spiritual equality of all living beings' BY PAUL TURNER, GLOBAL DIRECTOR OF FOOD FOR LIFE, AND MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL VEGETARIAN UNION COUNCIL

'HIM I CALL A BRAHMANA WHO LAYS ASIDE THE ROD , WHO NEITHER KILLS NOR CAUSES THE DEATH OF CREATURES , MOVING OR NON MOVING (ANIMALS OR PLANTS) ' BUDDHA IN DHAMMAPADA 26.409

' No buddhist country in the world is predominantly vegetarian. Tibetian and japanese monks eat meat, even red meat (including DALAI LAMA.) Soma is a plant juice' Dr. DAVID FRAWLEY, eminent american hindu.

The rig veda and sama veda call cow 'aghnya' and 'aditi' i.e. not to be murdered (Rig1-64-27, 5-83-8, 7-68-9, 1-164-40, 8-69-2, 9-1-9, 9-93-3, 10-6-11, 10-87-16) They extol the cow as unkillable, unmurderable whose milk purifies the mind and keep it from free sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for a person who kills a cow. The Atharva veda recommends beheading for such a crime (8-3-16) . Rig veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15)

 

[KRS]

Dear Naras Ji,

Thank you for giving references in our scriptures, where vegetarianism is extolled. Yes, Ahimsa is a part of our religion and I accept it. But, when you say that 'Brahmins' are vegetarians, that is what I am arguing against. Vegetarianism is recommended for everyone. Some followed it and others did not. In fact, its following sped up after the introduction of Budhism. It is also true that Yajnas including animal sacrifices were present during Vedic times and ALL participated in them.

Yes, Soma may be thought of as having 'medicinal' value, like alcohol, as sometimes used. But your conjecture that the 'Brahmins' took it only for that purpose does not follow logic.

I am not against Varna Dharma. I agree whole heartedly with Gandhi Ji. But you should know that he tried to change the caste situation. I am not even against the caste situation we are finding ourselves in. I just want us to understand what we are facing as a community today and why it happened.

There is no need for us to hang our head, by talking about our past. By truthfully examining our history, we will only strengthen our community. And then we can move ahead with ideas as to how to advance the cause of the unfortunate in our community.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear KRS:

1. Just what is 'soma paanam'? what was it made from? Surely they didn't have any grapes to make wine from it!!

2. What is the exact period Rg Veda was written?

Dear Silverfox Ji,

1. As I have written earlier in my posting, there are two schools of thought about Soma. But both schools of thought agree that Soma was made from the juice of a creeper of the same name.

Some believe that this juice is fermented and taken. But this is a minority view.

Others believe that the juice is akin to certain mushrooms, which contain certain hallucenegic substances. This view is the majority view.

2. Rg Veda's written age is anywhere between 4000 BC to 2500 BC. But we should remember that ours was mainly an oral tradition and in that sense, the age may be much, much older than that.

By the way, I have posted answers to you questions about 'Purusha Suktha' some whwre else in this thread. Hope you read it.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

On a serious note, is "Soma paanam" same as "Amudham" the elixir of life ?

Dear Hari Ji,

Amrudham is entirely different from Soma. Amrudham is a mythical drink of the Devas, while Soma was not. But then the 'Celestials' enjoyed Soma too. This is from my limited understanding.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[silverfox]

Dear KRS:
Thank you very much for explaining about our Vedas. Boy! I sure need these lessons! Please continue to enlighten us!

Could I ask you something: are all the quotations NARAS has posted true? i.e. Manusmriti 5.49, etc.
_____________________________________________
Having well considered the origin of flesh foods, and the cruelty of fettering & slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh"
MANUSMIRITHI 5.49

"You must not use your god given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever"
YAJUR VEDA, 12.32

"By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation"
MANUSMRITHI 6.60

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

Musings ...

KRS-ji, Pappan-ji, & Kashyap:
I was ruminating on stuff you wrote.
I have believed like Kashyap that much of our religion and culture is replete with symbols and metaphor - that the "Gods" are not idols or personae.
Given this framework - is Lord Anantha Padmanabha telling us something?: for it is the foetus that obtains nourishment through the umbilicus. But it is creation that springs from the Lord's umbilicus! NOT creation's umbilicus that is connected to the Lord's placenta. So does creation sustain and nourish the Lord ? But then - all creation is deemed "Shiva Tandavam" - the Lord animating the universe ... and Lord Vishnu is the preserver/nourisher ...
Or maybe they are like ying-and-yang (purusha and prakriti).

I disagree that the elephant is "slothful". It was used for hauling timber and heavy loads. It was also employed in war.
I begin to wonder whether it is the nature of its labors that makes it tamasic - elephant -> brute strength, a horse -> trained, the nature of its service requires less strength and more skill, the cow -> its very essence - milk and dung. Perhaps this embodies the distribution of resources in society - where there is division of labor, and the apportionment of wealth and social status are on the basis of training and skills - CEO, manager, white collar, pink collar and blue collar (I am deliberately using a different paradigm so as to avoid ruffling "caste" sensibilities!)

Since this verse talks about mouth, shoulder, thighs and feet, I was feeling in my mind about those parts in my body. Then I realized at my position, among these body parts none was higher, none was lower. All are at the same level since I was lying on my back. Then I remembered the figure used to personify the universe—lord Vishnu lying on his back as anantha padmanabha – from whom everything sprouts.

All this is anyway a metaphor—about the beginning of the universe and so on and so forth. So when at the beginning of the universe, if the lord was lying on his back, then nobody is above, nobody is below.

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

Amendment ...

Perhaps the following should read: "the apportionment of wealth and social status are on the basis of training and skills - CEO, manager, white collar, pink collar, blue collar, migrant labor, and undocumented migrant labor (I am deliberately using a different paradigm so as to avoid ruffling "caste" sensibilities!)

the apportionment of wealth and social status are on the basis of training and skills - CEO, manager, white collar, pink collar and blue collar (I am deliberately using a different paradigm so as to avoid ruffling "caste" sensibilities!)

 

[mrifan]

Agastya muni

I believe Mr. KRS is correct. Some Brahmana sages did eat meat at one point in time. The famous Vatapi episode with Sage Agastya comes to mind, where the sage "digests" a goat, who in reality is an asura. Of course, the above is just a fable, but it does allude to Brahmanas eating meat at one point in antiquity. Mahavira Jain and Budhha, both of them Kshatriya kings, were most probably responsible for the principle of Ahimsa to gain prominence in the 500-400BC time-frame. Brahmanas and Kshatriyas in particular, are mostly from the same genetic stock, and their roles were sometimes interchangeable. I will provide references to some haplotype studies that I remember being conducted, as soon as I can recall where that was. Witness the episode where Dronacharya picks up arms in the Mahabharata battle, while King Viswamitra (Kaushika) becomes a Brahmana.

It would be best to continuously learn and adopt the best practices from others, while keeping the core Vedic philosophy at the root of the community.

 

[mrifan]

Favorite topic at countercurrents.org

I believe this is a rehash of a post at countercurrents.org, and previously at Dalitstan (www.dalitstan.org). I am not sure why Ambedkarites are so consumed by this issue, these changes took place many thousands of years ago. Time to live in the present. And I definitely feel Brahmanas made the right decision in antiquity, and there should be no going back. And welcome back Mr. Goundamani.

 

[hariharan1972]

I agree

I couldn't agree more. Time to move forward. Let us not get stuck on this point since KRS Sir has so much more to share.

In summary, munnadai "beef, chicken" saapadiravala irundhirindhalum, ippo naama 'chickkanama' shaapadiravalayittom....adhanalla indha topic aa kshetha change pannittu, vera matteraa pathi pesalame'

Mr Goundamani - Welcome back from my side as well.

 

[goundamani]

thank you mrifan and hariharan.I feel happy to be back to the forum.

 

[NARAS]

'He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures live in misery in whatever species he may take his birth' Mahabharat 115.47

'Those high souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental & physical strength & memory should abstain from acts of injury' Mahabharat 18.115.8

'The very name of cow is 'Aghnya' (not to be killed) indicating that they should never be slaughtered. who, then could slay them? surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits a serious crime' Mahabharat Shanthiparv.262.47

'the original vedic system is actually quite different from contemporary hinduism. Both the old and the new,however, converge harmoniously in regard to vegeteranism. Lone before st. francis was declared patron saint of animals, the sages of ancient india had already recognised spirituality in all living species. Vedic texts even describe incarnations of god in animal forms. Vedas even acknowledge ability of ordinary animals to achieve exalted states of spirituality. Here, then is a religious tradition that emphasises not only vegeteranism, but also the spiritual equality of all living beings' BY PAUL TURNER, GLOBAL DIRECTOR OF FOOD FOR LIFE, AND MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL VEGETARIAN UNION COUNCIL

'HIM I CALL A BRAHMANA WHO LAYS ASIDE THE ROD , WHO NEITHER KILLS NOR CAUSES THE DEATH OF CREATURES , MOVING OR NON MOVING (ANIMALS OR PLANTS) ' BUDDHA IN DHAMMAPADA 26.409

' No buddhist country in the world is predominantly vegetarian. Tibetian and japanese monks eat meat, even red meat (including DALAI LAMA.) Soma is a plant juice' Dr. DAVID FRAWLEY, eminent american hindu.

The rig veda and sama veda call cow 'aghnya' and 'aditi' i.e. not to be murdered (Rig1-64-27, 5-83-8, 7-68-9, 1-164-40, 8-69-2, 9-1-9, 9-93-3, 10-6-11, 10-87-16) They extol the cow as unkillable, unmurderable whose milk purifies the mind and keep it from free sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for a person who kills a cow. The Atharva veda recommends beheading for such a crime (8-3-16) . Rig veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15)

SIR - SOME MORE quotations from sciptures which i could not mention due to mention in my previous postings-

 

[kspv]

Going back to the discussion on Soma,

Soma almost certainly was not alcohol. It could be, like somebody already pointed out on this forum, a hallucinogen. There has been some experimentation through the use mind-altering drugs in matters spiritual in the past, particularly in mysticism (Kabbalah or Cabalism within Judaism, Sufism within Islam, Gnosticism within Christianity, Vajrayana within Buddhism, and Tantricism within Hinduism). Some modern day philosophers too advocate this.

Some mind-altering drugs, particularly those derived from mushrooms, can make an individual extremely focussed, and probably some sages of ancient times found much use of such substances. Hence Soma was extolled in some Vedic writings.

Often cited as an example for the focussing power conferred by some mind-altering drugs, is the Battle of Isandlwana or the "Day of the Zulu". Here a group of Zulus completely overran a fully armed English army and massacarred them. A significant contributor to the Zulu victory was a hallucinogenic mushroom containing a toxin called Muscimol. This chemical induces a state of expanded perception in those who ingest it. Warriors who consumed those mushrooms would be rendered utterly fearless, believing themselves impervious to bullets, and would be extremely focussed.

 

[NARAS]

sir - varnashrama was based not on birth, but on basis of profession. brahmins were priests, kshatriyas warriors, vaishyas business & shudras
labourers. any person could convert to any varna (pls. read thuglak issue dt. 17 03 2007, Mr. cho's weekly column 'hindu maha samuthiram' page nos. 448 to 451). what happened was that, some non bramins converted to bramins over the years. it were these converted bramins or descendants of these converted bramins, who ate meat & indulged in animal sacrifice, and not the original bramins. it were these 'new' bramins who inferred, interpreted & interpolated scriptures in a wrong way. it was because of this bitter experience that bramins decided not to allow any person from other varnas or religions to convert to brahminism. so the motive of bramins was not hatred of other varnas, but only to protect distinctness of braminism.

2. soma is a plant juice with medicinal value, says Dr. David Frawley, famous american
3. in theravada buddhist text, it has been mentioned that buddha himself ate meat! this is mentioned in wikipedia also,whereas orthodox bramins even today do not consume even onions or garlic, leave alone egg or meat!

in a lighter vein, i would like to narrate a joke of my college days. it is said muslims eat so much of non vegetarian food , that their sexual passion is kindled to uncontrollable levels. but persons having one wife will find it difficult during the 3 days of menstrual periods of their partner to control their passion. so muslims were allowed since times immemorial to have 4 wives, so that even if 3 of them get menstruation at same time, at least 1 wife will be left for the husband!!!! (BTW this is only a joke. even i have a couple of muslim friends.)

i find some technical difficulties in updating my postings in this forum.

 

[NARAS]

SIR - I have some technical problems in updating my postings, due to which some of my views have not been registered.

2. Varnashrama was based not on birth, but on profession. Brahmins were priests,kshatriyas warriors, vaishyas businessmen & shudras labourers. any person could convert from one varna to another varna (read thuglak issue dated 14 03 2007, page nos.448 to 452, 'Hindu Maha samuthiram' by Mr. cho ramaswamy) what happened was that over the years, many persons converted from other varnas to brahminism, and it were these 'new' convert bramins & their descendants who indulged in animal sacrifice and meat eating, whereas orthodox original
bramins avoid even onions & garlic till date,, not to speak of eggs and meat! it was because of this bitter experience that bramins decided not to allow anybody from other varnas to convert to brahminism. the motive of bramins was not hatred of other varnas, but to preserve their distinct identity.

3. Dr. David Frawley, eminent american says Soma is a plant juice with medicinal value.

4. in theravada buddhism, buddha has been mentioned as eating meat! even wikipedia mentions this.

5. it is said muslims are allowed to have 4 wives, because, muslims eat so much of non vegetarian food that, their sexual passion is aroused to uncontrollable limits. so they are allowed to have 4 wives, so that even if three of them get menstrual periods at the same time, there is still one wife left for the husband to satiate his lust. (this is only for joke & fun)

by oversight i have duplicated a couple of postings. i will be careful hereafter.

 

[KRS]

Dear KRS:
Thank you very much for explaining about our Vedas. Boy! I sure need these lessons! Please continue to enlighten us!

Could I ask you something: are all the quotations NARAS has posted true? i.e. Manusmriti 5.49, etc.
_____________________________________________
Having well considered the origin of flesh foods, and the cruelty of fettering & slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh"
MANUSMIRITHI 5.49

"You must not use your god given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever"
YAJUR VEDA, 12.32

"By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation"
MANUSMRITHI 6.60

Dear Silverfox Ji,

Sri Naras Ji has quoted everything that is usually quoted in defense of Vegetarianism. Yes, they appear so in the texts he has quoted from. But there are several contextual facts about these quotes:

1. The yajur Veda quote is from the most recent dated (circa 2 BC) recension of the Veda called 'White or Shukla Yajur Veda' and the older version (circa about 1000 BC) is called "Black or Krishna Yajur Veda". Some say that the old recension originated in the South and the newer one in the North. Some believe the color references pertain to lucidity (white) and complex (black). White seems to follow the Black in the number of verses, but seems to have been 'rearranged' or 'edited' by the Rishi Yajnyavalkya, with more explanations. The passage on not killing appears in the newer version only. Again both versions are mainly about the sacrificial rites, seemingly written for the priests to follow. Both cite ample animal sacrifices all through out. So, one can assume that the effect of Budhism and Jainism (Circa 500 BC) and ahimsa might have seeped in to the 'White' version.

2. Manu Smriti quotes might have been quite recent - no one can tell. Because this started as a 'law manual' from ancient times, it has been constantly added to and subtracted from, based on the prevailing morality of the times. This was not even considered as a part of our Smritis, such as Upanishads, because of this reason. So, the people whose job it was to keep this manual updated, did so to suit the politics of the day. There are also references in some of our Puranas, saying that for Kali Yuga, Manu Smriti is no longer applicable. 'Parashara Smriti' is recommended for this Yuga, where Bhakthi Yoga is emphasized over social divisions.

Hope this explains.

Pranams,
KRS