• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Food Habits ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kiamzattu

0
Hello everyone,
As a member of TamBrahm community, I'm guided by certain rules and regulations especially the food habits,among which 'consumption of meat' one of the highest taboo. I'm really curious to find out the purpose and the reason for this practice. I did a little research before posting the question here but couldn't find a satisfactory answer.
One of the reason I found out was , a brahmin's kitchen should be free from the blood of animals but then what about milk? Isn't it just blood in another form?

The other reasons being the categorization of foods into sattvic,rajasic and tamasic. Meat not being saatvic is thus prohibited for Brahmins. There is validity in this statement but I'm not fully convinced as how can occasional eating of meat bring about a huge change in temperament of a person. (Indians consume meat lesser than most of the other countries).

Daya or compassion to animals seems to be a valid reason but why was it restricted to just brahmins or am i wrong in assuming meat eating was prohibited to brahmins alone? And when you look at the sastras especially smritis there is always a mention tat a brahmin is not supposed to eat meat. I read a book called Hinduism by K.M.Sen (Grand father of Amartya Sen) where he is of the opinion that the early Aryans were indeed meat eaters and Vegetarianism as a concept was primarily borrowed from Buddhism and Jainism. In a way when you look at it from the perspectives of Sastras if meat eating was prohibited and condemned for Brahmins could it be because such a practice did exist? I mean Brahmins consumed meat and in the later stages it was prohibited.

I could be totally wrong but still I'm really curious. Why Don't Brahmins consume meat? Is it just because it has been laid down in Sastras?

I'm not here to ridicule our Sastras nor am I going to consume meat.Just want to know the reason and purpose of this practice because my elders couldn't give a valid reply and I don't blame them but I want to make sure my children know the truth and the rationality behind our customs and practices.

Regards
Anand
 
Reply...

I can give two different reasons why people with "Brahmana" guna are forbidden to eat meat -
1. The vaatapi-Agastya episode - More here -"Vatapi, Be Digested"
2. There are 3 types of Gunas in food - Satwika, Rajas & Tamas. Meat comes under Rajas category.
A person who wants to increase his "Brahmana" qualities is required to eat food that is Satwika. Milk, for example comes in the Satwika category. Onion, for example comes under Rajas category. Alcohol, Food that is old, etc, comes under the Tamas category.

Just my 2 cents.

Radhe Radhe!
 
Dear Sri Anand,

This subject has been discussed a number of times in the Forum, with the support of authoritative Scriptures.
Brahmins were taking meat and liquor in Vedic age. I wish to quote a few lines from my earlier post on this subject.
"we are a mixture of Ethical, Moral, Scientific and Social concepts. Which changes according to our environmental needs. Our experience is our Guide and Guru.The noted neuroscientist Dr.V.S.Ramachandran says ".... that the human is primarily an organ of cultural sophistication and diversity. It is this trait above all that makes us absolutely unique in the animal kingdom". Thus we can justify any of our actions including the nature of that we consume. We abhor killing of any living thing on one hand and at the same time spend millions of dollars on the manufacture of Arms and ammunition for the annihilation of our own race. Where is the ethics in this?"

"Just as any other aspect of Cultural refinement our food habits also have changed considerably in the course of time from coarse grain , and alcoholic drinks, (in Vedic times) to much more delicate and varied "soft" food which includes vegetarian food, perhaps due to influence of Saivism and Jainism. There is nothing moral or immoral in the kind of food that we take.

It is my personal choice to be a vegetarian. Nothing more than that. I do not attach any ethical or moral value for this."

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
kiamzattu said:
Hello everyone,
As a member of TamBrahm community, I'm guided by certain rules and regulations especially the food habits,among which 'consumption of meat' one of the highest taboo. I'm really curious to find out the purpose and the reason for this practice. I did a little research before posting the question here but couldn't find a satisfactory answer.
One of the reason I found out was , a brahmin's kitchen should be free from the blood of animals but then what about milk? Isn't it just blood in another form?

The other reasons being the categorization of foods into sattvic,rajasic and tamasic. Meat not being saatvic is thus prohibited for Brahmins. There is validity in this statement but I'm not fully convinced as how can occasional eating of meat bring about a huge change in temperament of a person. (Indians consume meat lesser than most of the other countries).

Daya or compassion to animals seems to be a valid reason but why was it restricted to just brahmins or am i wrong in assuming meat eating was prohibited to brahmins alone? And when you look at the sastras especially smritis there is always a mention tat a brahmin is not supposed to eat meat. I read a book called Hinduism by K.M.Sen (Grand father of Amartya Sen) where he is of the opinion that the early Aryans were indeed meat eaters and Vegetarianism as a concept was primarily borrowed from Buddhism and Jainism. In a way when you look at it from the perspectives of Sastras if meat eating was prohibited and condemned for Brahmins could it be because such a practice did exist? I mean Brahmins consumed meat and in the later stages it was prohibited.

I could be totally wrong but still I'm really curious. Why Don't Brahmins consume meat? Is it just because it has been laid down in Sastras?

I'm not here to ridicule our Sastras nor am I going to consume meat.Just want to know the reason and purpose of this practice because my elders couldn't give a valid reply and I don't blame them but I want to make sure my children know the truth and the rationality behind our customs and practices.

Regards
Anand
Click to expand...

Shri Anand Sir,

Jains are strict vegetarians and also don't eat roots and things growing below ground because they fear worms may be there and by eating those roots they will kill living things. they also don't eat after sunset and i heard they avoid burning lights (oil lamps) in olden days because flies will come and get burned. brahmins might have copied jains at some time or i even think that some king or the other may have forcefully converted jains to brahmins, we don't know.
 
Hi all,
sorry couldn't follow up sooner. Thanks for the replies.
Shri Ram Sundar, agreed with the satvic,rajasic and tamasic food types. Kshytrias were allowed to eat meat/rajasic or tamasic because they were to protect people and hence they needed to be aggressive. Agreed. But in today's world where Varna and profession are totally unrelated this 'prohibition' of meat for Brahmins wouldn't make any sense (atleast for me).

Brahmanyan, Great reply Sir. Hats off.
Agreed with all your points except one.
" There is nothing moral or immoral in the kind of food that we take".
I think this is not true mainly because we attach 'meat eating' as immoral and by We, I mean a section of Brahmins/Non Brahmins. That pains me to an extent and I feel those people are hypocrites in this matter. They believe that being a vegetarian is 'pure' (You know what I'm talking about). But as you said its just a matter of personal choice and cultural refinement but many don't see meat eating from this perspective.

Shri sarma,
I think you summed it up very well- "We just don't know why we are prohibited from eating meat". We can speculate on the reasons though.
 
kiamzattu said:
Shri sarma,
I think you summed it up very well- "We just don't know why we are prohibited from eating meat". We can speculate on the reasons though.
Click to expand...

Shri Kiamzattu Sir,

meat-eating causes addiction. if no meat is eaten for many days the persons will feel unwell - but not as dangerously as in drugs. i read in the web that in some african tribes when famine is there, many people suffer this sickness. The witch doctor makes some magic rites and then gives some small meat peace and the disease goes away.

i think such addiction was there among brahmanas doing the many yagams, so they went on doing yagams - no expense for them because they will tell "we will do such-and-such yaga for your welfare, becoming rich", etc., and king or some rich person will give money. they went on sprees of doing yaagams, killing many animals and eating meat. jains were against but they were not powerful. but buddha was very powerful, large following and rejected vedams itself which caussed these yaagams. He argued with brahmins and tried to change them but they did not till Ashoka became buddist. then, brahmins wanted no punishment from emperor, (Asoka's rock-edicts ban animal killing, you see) and like mice claimed they are vegetarians. but the truth is still there in old books like smritis i understand.

tomorrow if taliban rule comes, i am sure brahmins will be first to leave sinking ship of brahmanism and convert to islam, we know brahmins removed kudumis, wore coat and turban, leather chappals, and even touched foreigners - bosses, collectors, saayippu, white men - when the rule said brahmins should bathe, do praayascittam and all if he happened to come near mleccha. see, how clever we are!!

only all of us should become honest (or is it foolish) to accept this and stop bragging about our greatness.
 
Shri Sarma

only all of us should become honest (or is it foolish) to accept this and stop bragging about our greatness.

Well put. I'm of the same opinion. So I hope I'm right to conclude that 'Brahmins' could have been meat eaters and some where,some time this practice was prohibited. Then as centuries passed, 'meat eating' was attached a meaning of Immoral behavior ans passed on for generations. Since the prohibition of meat eating was taken as a collective decision all the Brahmins were expected to follow it. The best way to make them follow is to codify it in Smritis. This way the questioning behind the practice would be avoided to a certain extent and devout Brahmins who follow the Smritis would be happy to have a led a religious and Virtuous life.
 
As far as I am concerned, eating meat or not eating it is one's personal choice. But that is reinforced by one's parental habits and way of upbringing.

There is another way of looking at it as explained by this poem.


அழித்தல்

உன்னால் படைக்கப்படாத எதையும்
அழிப்பதற்கு
உனக்கு உரிமை இல்லை.
நீ படைத்த எதையும்
அழிப்பதற்கோ
உனக்கு இதயமில்லை.
ஆக,
அழித்தல் என்பது எப்போதுமே
உன் கையில் இல்லை.


Many agree that one's habits and character are immensely influenced by what one eats. I am also of the same view.
 
kiamzattu said:
Shri Sarma

only all of us should become honest (or is it foolish) to accept this and stop bragging about our greatness.

Well put. I'm of the same opinion. So I hope I'm right to conclude that 'Brahmins' could have been meat eaters and some where,some time this practice was prohibited. Then as centuries passed, 'meat eating' was attached a meaning of Immoral behavior ans passed on for generations. Since the prohibition of meat eating was taken as a collective decision all the Brahmins were expected to follow it. The best way to make them follow is to codify it in Smritis. This way the questioning behind the practice would be avoided to a certain extent and devout Brahmins who follow the Smritis would be happy to have a led a religious and Virtuous life.
Click to expand...

Shri Kiamzattu,

Abjuring meat was not a 'collective' decision, IMO, because the highest of bengali brahmins even today require fish everyday, practically.

Smritis, being recollections of past norms and practices do not seem to prohibit meat eating except on 'vratam' days and periods, but this is just my impression only.

The present practice of brahmins to be vegetarians is by imitation of some vegetarian groups who were held in esteem by the larger population. Still use of milk and milk products strikes foreigners as non-vegetarian habit, though we have not even an iota of remorse for depriving the calves of their nature-given mother's milk. why, even our much venerated krishna was given to drinking milk straight from the udders (as per some accounts and paintings I have seen) and we, foolishly (i often recollect Amitabh Bachan's popular song in which he says 'bund akl ke taale' - intelligence locked), adore such stories, which has I feel, in course of time, made us into a morally decadent people.
 
Shri Pannavalan,
There can't be creation without destruction,nice poem BTW.

Shri Sarma,
I'm not sure if I got you correctly but do u mean Abjuring Meat is not prescribed in Smritis? I thought the other way
 
kiamzattu said:
Shri Sarma,
I'm not sure if I got you correctly but do u mean Abjuring Meat is not prescribed in Smritis? I thought the other way
Click to expand...

yes, sir. i have seen from some of the posts here in this forum itself and also from manusmriti translation that eating meat was common and if my memory is right even pork (pig's meat) was not prohibited.

I remember reading somewhere that the meat of such-and-such animal/s will keep the pitrus satisfied (not hungry) for such-and-such periods, and, again if i remember correct, porcupine's meat is supposed to keep the pitrus in full belly for one year!
 
kiamzattu said:
Shri Sarma

only all of us should become honest (or is it foolish) to accept this and stop bragging about our greatness.

Well put. I'm of the same opinion. So I hope I'm right to conclude that 'Brahmins' could have been meat eaters and some where,some time this practice was prohibited. Then as centuries passed, 'meat eating' was attached a meaning of Immoral behavior ans passed on for generations. Since the prohibition of meat eating was taken as a collective decision all the Brahmins were expected to follow it. The best way to make them follow is to codify it in Smritis. This way the questioning behind the practice would be avoided to a certain extent and devout Brahmins who follow the Smritis would be happy to have a led a religious and Virtuous life.
Click to expand...

Leave aside whether we are to be bound by tradition or by religious injunctions.

If whole of human population were to consume meat, the earth will be denuded in no time. The conversion ratio makes not eating meat quite sensible for majority of human population i.e for every unit of meat to be produced, 6 to 8 units of grass, greenery has to be expended. However, consumption of meat for those doing hard labour in restricted quantities can be prescribed. Nature, I suppose has given us the faculty of discrimination, which is what 'Brahmanyam' ascribes to culture.

The tropical rain-forests of Brazil are being converted into ranches to breed cows/bulls to feed the population of Americas, Europe and now China.

Some years back one professor of veterinary college was telling me that "ongole" breed of bulls are now bred in Brazil, mainly for beef.

Brahmins are involved mainly in mental/sedantary activity, hence meat eating is not a necessity.

As for consumption of milk I relate a story attributed to Sri Ramakrishna (the story was originally to explain something different), but I find it quite apt here:

You can get milk from a cow. But do you get milk, if you randomly pierce any part of cow? You'll get milk only through its teats.

Those who don't consume milk or its derivatives are classified as vegans, the notable practitioner being Menaka Gandhi.

Regards,
 
SwamiTaBra said:
Leave aside whether we are to be bound by tradition or by religious injunctions.

If whole of human population were to consume meat, the earth will be denuded in no time. The conversion ratio makes not eating meat quite sensible for majority of human population i.e for every unit of meat to be produced, 6 to 8 units of grass, greenery has to be expended. However, consumption of meat for those doing hard labour in restricted quantities can be prescribed. Nature, I suppose has given us the faculty of discrimination, which is what 'Brahmanyam' ascribes to culture.

The tropical rain-forests of Brazil are being converted into ranches to breed cows/bulls to feed the population of Americas, Europe and now China.

Some years back one professor of veterinary college was telling me that "ongole" breed of bulls are now bred in Brazil, mainly for beef.

Brahmins are involved mainly in mental/sedantary activity, hence meat eating is not a necessity.

As for consumption of milk I relate a story attributed to Sri Ramakrishna (the story was originally to explain something different), but I find it quite apt here:

You can get milk from a cow. But do you get milk, if you randomly pierce any part of cow? You'll get milk only through its teats.

Those who don't consume milk or its derivatives are classified as vegans, the notable practitioner being Menaka Gandhi.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Shri Swami Sir,

The point is whether there is any specific advantage in being dairy-vegetarian or if it is not ok for any one to eat nv also occasionally. even confirmed nvs who are knowlegable do eat vegetables, leafy, etc. so, if all people of the world eat some meat and some veg+dairy also, it will be ok. then, this one to six/eight ratio applies for milk also, is it not? so, if we go by that we shd avoid milk and dairy products also.
 
Dear SwamiTaBra,
I'm with you on the fact on that meat eating adds to our climate woes indirectly. I agree that forest lands are destroyed and converted to pasture lands for cattles. And the methane emission by cattles is far more dangerous than the CO2 emissions from the vehicles and industries put together. But this thread was not started as a call to ask Brahmins to eat meat or to discuss its global warming aspects. I started this thread with the sole aim of finding out the scriptural authority which prohibits Brahmins from eating meat. This is what I infer from the discussion in th e forum
1. Brahmins were meat eaters in the past (many Many centuries ago)
2. Due to influence of 'Jainism' and "Buddhism" and also from within the Hindu society,Meat was abjured for the Brahmins as a symbol of cultural refinement.
3.Smritis being contextual as they are prohibit meat eating in general but prescribe meat for certain scenarios mainly Pitr Yagnas. Just as in many other cases these Smritis contradict themselves but we don't have the right to judge them based on the measuring scale of present society's standards. They are best left as they were.
4. SOme of the Brahmins/Non Brahmins are making a big mistake by attaching the 'immoral' tag to meat eating and they assume they are leading a religious life by abstaining from meat where as the scriptures present a different picture.

To conclude, Meat eating is not prescribed for today's world because of various other reasons

PS: I'm a vegetarian,so are my parents/family. When I have children I want to make sure they are vegetarians too for reasons anything but religious.
 
kiamzattu said:
...
3.Smritis being contextual as they are prohibit meat eating in general but prescribe meat for certain scenarios mainly Pitr Yagnas. Just as in many other cases these Smritis contradict themselves but we don't have the right to judge them based on the measuring scale of present society's standards. They are best left as they were.[/QUIT]

Shri Kiamzattu,

It is perhaps not correct to conclude that smritis prescribe meat for certain scenarios only. My info. is that the smritis reflect a generally meat-eating brahmin life style.

To conclude, Meat eating is not prescribed for today's world because of various other reasons

PS: I'm a vegetarian,so are my parents/family. When I have children I want to make sure they are vegetarians too for reasons anything but religious.
Click to expand...

I would differ on both the above points pl. It is alright for today's world, as also future generations, to accept vegetarian - cum - meat food habit. Only thing to be guarded against is a dependence on (addiction to) meat.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Sir,

Brahmins- are supposed to be the researchers for a higher goal in life-i.e reach the Brahman; in this journey, they are prescribed with certain values and regulations one of which is abstinence from meat. This is my opinion. Also it seems that you are confusing milk and meat on the same vein;it is not so. After milching a cow,it does not lose its life. It is not so in the case of a goat/hen or other animal species. We can also see,even in animals,herbivores are a 'sadhvic 'group compared to 'carnivore' or 'omnivore'. Not only brahmins, but who ever wants to pursue a holistic way of life will surely follow a veg. diet.

To my knowledge, saying that scriptures support meat-eating may not be valid. Sankaracharya has replied once that there are some sanskrit terms which have more than one meaning (Mamsam) for one and the gen next due to their lack of knowledge took the literal meaning. It may help us to remember the incident said to have happened at Kanchi. Once due to some wrong notions,the Goddess was being offered "animal sacrifice" and "wine" called Somarasa by Kaabaaligas. The Goddess became furious ad the whole place started suffering from drought and poverty. It was at this time that Jagadguru Adi Shankara came to Kanchi and prayed for forgiveness and made the Goddess "Shantham".
He then educated the people about the correct ways of worship and emphasized to stop with the sacrifice of animals and taught them about the compassion and mercy of the Goddess. This is explained by Kanchi Periyaval in his "Deivathin Kural".

Regards
Anamika

cont
kiamzattu said:
Dear SwamiTaBra,
I'm with you on the fact on that meat eating adds to our climate woes indirectly. I agree that forest lands are destroyed and converted to pasture lands for cattles. And the methane emission by cattles is far more dangerous than the CO2 emissions from the vehicles and industries put together. But this thread was not started as a call to ask Brahmins to eat meat or to discuss its global warming aspects. I started this thread with the sole aim of finding out the scriptural authority which prohibits Brahmins from eating meat. This is what I infer from the discussion in th e forum
1. Brahmins were meat eaters in the past (many Many centuries ago)
2. Due to influence of 'Jainism' and "Buddhism" and also from within the Hindu society,Meat was abjured for the Brahmins as a symbol of cultural refinement.
3.Smritis being contextual as they are prohibit meat eating in general but prescribe meat for certain scenarios mainly Pitr Yagnas. Just as in many other cases these Smritis contradict themselves but we don't have the right to judge them based on the measuring scale of present society's standards. They are best left as they were.
4. SOme of the Brahmins/Non Brahmins are making a big mistake by attaching the 'immoral' tag to meat eating and they assume they are leading a religious life by abstaining from meat where as the scriptures present a different picture.

To conclude, Meat eating is not prescribed for today's world because of various other reasons

PS: I'm a vegetarian,so are my parents/family. When I have children I want to make sure they are vegetarians too for reasons anything but religious.
Click to expand...
 
anamika said:
Hello Sir,

Brahmins- are supposed to be the researchers for a higher goal in life-i.e reach the Brahman; in this journey, they are prescribed with certain values and regulations one of which is abstinence from meat. This is my opinion. Also it seems that you are confusing milk and meat on the same vein;it is not so. After milching a cow,it does not lose its life. It is not so in the case of a goat/hen or other animal species. We can also see,even in animals,herbivores are a 'sadhvic 'group compared to 'carnivore' or 'omnivore'. Not only brahmins, but who ever wants to pursue a holistic way of life will surely follow a veg. diet.

To my knowledge, saying that scriptures support meat-eating may not be valid. Sankaracharya has replied once that there are some sanskrit terms which have more than one meaning (Mamsam) for one and the gen next due to their lack of knowledge took the literal meaning. It may help us to remember the incident said to have happened at Kanchi. Once due to some wrong notions,the Goddess was being offered "animal sacrifice" and "wine" called Somarasa by Kaabaaligas. The Goddess became furious ad the whole place started suffering from drought and poverty. It was at this time that Jagadguru Adi Shankara came to Kanchi and prayed for forgiveness and made the Goddess "Shantham".
He then educated the people about the correct ways of worship and emphasized to stop with the sacrifice of animals and taught them about the compassion and mercy of the Goddess. This is explained by Kanchi Periyaval in his "Deivathin Kural".

Regards
Anamika

cont
Click to expand...

Dear Anamika,

Thanks for expatiating on the distinction between meat-eating and milk consumption and its relation to sattvic living. I add to that by saying that a lactating animals like cows would heave a sigh of relief only after it is milked. (of course the calf has to given its due share).

So milk extraction could be termed "ahimsa".

Regards,
Swami

P.S.: With which honorific you should be addressed ? Shri or Smt. or Kum.
Interestingly my samskrit teacher last afternoon was referring to "anamika" -- the one without name (the ring finger)while conducting a lesson on Kalidasa. I am tempted to say
that there was a telepathy in operation.
 
Last edited:
Anamika,

"Brahmins- are supposed to be the researchers for a higher goal in life-i.e reach the Brahman; in this journey, they are prescribed with certain values and regulations one of which is abstinence from meat. This is my opinion. Also it seems that you are confusing milk and meat on the same vein;it is not so. After milching a cow,it does not lose its life. It is not so in the case of a goat/hen or other animal species"

I hope the 'you' here is meant for me,so I'm replying to it. I'm not comparing milking cow and meat eating. For us the former is a vegetarian practice and the latter is not. Where as in the west both are non vegetarian practices because it involves animals. Anyway I'm going to make somethings clear now.
This thread was started to know about the scriptural backing of the practice of Vegetarianism which most of the brahmins are expected to follow. The word 'Iyer' has become or always been synonymous with Vegetarianism. Historical research has shown that Brahmins were once meat eaters but at the same time Non violence was looked upon as a great virtue.

Brahmins derive their code of conduct from Smritis (AFAIK). So I'm just asking if we have enough 'scriptural backing' on the practice of vegetarianism which according to many of the Brahmins is a moral High ground.

"To my knowledge, saying that scriptures support meat-eating may not be valid. Sankaracharya has replied once that there are some sanskrit terms which have more than one meaning (Mamsam) for one and the gen next due to their lack of knowledge took the literal meaning"

This is a really valid point which we can't ignore but I believe the word 'mamsam' would have been contextual and when used in conjunction with performing a sacrifice,chances are the word mamsam would very much mean 'meat'.
 
Similarly, vegetarianism and ahimsa can be realized through the old adage “treat others as you would like to be treated.” Swami Dayananda, in his “The Value of Values” connects this to ahimsa and vegetarianism by stating that we should not think of ‘somebody’ being our dinner if we do not want to be ‘somebody’ else’s dinner.’THIS MEAN IF KILL SOMEONE LIKE ANIMAL THE BLOOD WILL EVIL OUR MIND IT MAKES OUR FAR AWAY FROM GOD.SO AS BRAHMIN WE EAT VEGETABLES TO PURED OUR MIND TO BE NEAR IN DIVINE OF GOD
 
Shri siganeswarie,
'THE BLOOD WILL EVIL OUR MIND IT MAKES OUR FAR AWAY FROM GOD'
If thats the case then what about Milk? Isn't it just 'blood' in another form? But we don't seem to have any qualms in consuming milk.
 
Kanchi paramacharya has well described this concept and is available on the kanchi website.
Here is another article by a srividya upasaka,
Pashu Bali

Killing of any living being knowingly or unknowingly directly or indirectly, for the food of oneself or for the food of others brings sin. but if it is done for dharma then it is not sin.
A straight application is killing of enemies of dharma in a war according to the laws of dharma.
This is not wrong and I guess most of us agree.
Brahmana has to adopt vegetarianism for the following reasons
1. ahmisa
2. chitta shuddi
3. inspire good conduct in others( be the correct example )
These ideas were neither inspired by jainism or buddhism. This was part of Indian culture much before these religions came in place. Jainism and buddhism were reformist religions. They came at a time when
1. Conduct of brahmanas was deteriorated
2. when brahmanas lacked the intellectual power to prove their views coherently
These religions picked up specific ideas of religion in the environment of the times,focussed on them and tried to bring reform. Since most of non brahmins had left the rituals of vedas( for example wearing sacred thread, performing important rites) and used brahmins as per convenience their faith in vedas was weak and getting weakened seeing that the conduct of brahmins( the only people who learnt vedas by that time) was not up to the mark either. Lack of understanding vedas, not knowing what to reform etc, resulted in the birth of these new religions. They picked up some noble ideas and propagated it. Brahmins were also influenced by the newly wrapped and modern ideas of the times, like they are influenced by western ideas now! However shankaracharya brought back the spotlight on vedas. In the translation of brahmasutras we know that ahimsa is a marga but sacrifice of animals was accepted in a yagna- this is paramacharya view and also acknowledged in adi shankara's interpretation!
So brahmins and ascetis as we can see were always vegetarians. however brahmins sacrificed animals in yagna and what they had was not anything more than a very minute speck of meat derived from the pashu's particular part. Now question why is sacrifice of a living being needed.
The concept is difficult and I dont claim to be accepted. By I can certainly give a clue that it has its origin in the very way the universe was formed, by the sacrifice of purusha who himself became the pashu( refer to purusha sooktam) . So instead of blindly forming opinions lets realize that yagna sacrifice has a very cosmological idea and remember that something cannot come from nothing, and some poweful sacrifice is needed to bring out the benefits to the world. the physical body of the pashu undergoes a transformation into what we call the benefits of the yagna, at the same time the atma of the pashu becomes sparked into an upward journey due to the chant of the mantras. In other circumstances the pashu would have roamed round aimlessly and in most cases not realizing its true spiritual nature would have ended up reborn into something lower or continued as a pashu and in the rarest cases elevated to a human. However in this fast acceleration it acquires a divine nature. What is the proof of all this? Well if we have faith in vedas and recite it we are able to observe its power. The fact that vedas has withstood the ravages of times itself indicates that its centre of gravity is very much in place. thje lusture of the people who dived deep into vedas is another evidence. further the only way vedas have been prevented from sustaining is due to following classes of people
1.the practitioners initially are lazy in performance of the rites, only the children of such people loose faith in vedas inspite of being taught the subject in depth
2. the people who are indisciplined
3. people who are not steady and calm in nature
4.people being forced at the tip of sword/gun point to give up or neglect vedic studies
5. people due to vocational and environmental situation neglect vedic study, inspite of having faith in them

On the other hand one cannot find a single instance of a person leaving the vedas if all below is satisfied
1. he is very disciplined, diligent and hard working
2. calm and steady in mind
3. humble and respectful to elders
4. belongs to a family where many/most are an inspiration in vedic rites and conduct
5. comes from a family who have followed the vedas and have tejas in their face( a proof of not leading a sinful life)

At this point because we dont have the great rishis living amongst us, this is the real pramanam that this is the most significant mode of thinking and thought in history. since its clear in the smritis and puranas that animal consumption outside yagna is unacceptable, we have to understand that non vegetarianism( indirect or direct or sponsored for others) is strictly banned for brahmins because they have no way to neutralize the sin acquired by killing these beings or to neutralize the tendencies that arise out of consumption of low beings,we have to keep away. yagna was an exception and at best it is right and even if it is not wrong the very concept is subordinate to the other daily practices which do not include non vegetarianism. hence vegetarianism is the only acceptable way. about yagna if somebody knows how to perform pashu bali then he may do so provided his guru's credentials are authentic. but as we can see there are no authentic practioners at this point of time, so question of meat consumption at any time does not arise at all!
Milk consumption is clear- if milk is had after calf of cow has its fill, then it can be had, but effort must be taken not to commercialize consumption of milk, and ideally its better to have a cow in our own homes if we have the facility or money
 
@pviyer
Thanks for such a valuable information.I understand the 'Dharmic' context in the yagnas conducted by Brahmins.

"So instead of blindly forming opinions lets realize that yagna sacrifice has a very cosmological idea and remember that something cannot come from nothing, and some poweful sacrifice is needed to bring out the benefits to the world. the physical body of the pashu undergoes a transformation into what we call the benefits of the yagna, at the same time the atma of the pashu becomes sparked into an upward journey due to the chant of the mantras. In other circumstances the pashu would have roamed round aimlessly and in most cases not realizing its true spiritual nature would have ended up reborn into something lower or continued as a pashu and in the rarest cases elevated to a human."

Does the Vedas grant the right to Man (read Brahmins) to 'transform' the cow into realizing its true nature by conducting 'Yagnas' or he just assumed it on his own?

"brahmins sacrificed animals in yagna and what they had was not anything more than a very minute speck of meat derived from the pashu's particular part"

It would be really helpful if you could provide some quotes from authentic scriptures which allows a brahmin to have nothing more than a speck of meat derived from sacrifice of the pashu.

"since its clear in the smritis and puranas that animal consumption outside yagna is unacceptable"

This is what I have been asking for, can you please quote from the Smritis?
By the way i have one question, we know that 'Smritis' were never a law of the land and by that statement I mean brahmins lived in pockets across Bharat and each of them followed a different set of Smritis. So does all the 'Smritis' that we have assert the statement that animal consumption outside yagna is unacceptable?

PS: I have saved your reply,really intriguing !. Looking forward to more such replies.

Thanks
Anand
 
kiamzattu said:
@pviyer


Does the Vedas grant the right to Man (read Brahmins) to 'transform' the cow into realizing its true nature by conducting 'Yagnas' or he just assumed it on his own?
Click to expand...
We know that only via different shastras such as Manu smriti and reconfirmed by people like paramacharya of Kanchi(His view on the same is available on public domain). How and the way to conduct Yagna is taught to the student of Vedas. People have been performing Yagna with Pashu Bali assuming that they have the right to perform it, and this right is bestowed upon humans by God. This is the belief. Either one accepts this view or one does not. There is no way to prove or disprove the same! It just like somebody disputing that the centuries old land owned by you was stolen from the lowcastes without evidence. It may or may not be true. Bottomline is Man had already assumed the right to own cows, kill plants and cut trees and own land. Who gave him that right?

kiamzattu said:
@pviyer
"brahmins sacrificed animals in yagna and what they had was not anything more than a very minute speck of meat derived from the pashu's particular part"
Click to expand...
I am not inventing it, paramacharya of kanchi made such a statement, also available in public domain. Further I know that 30-40 years back some namboothiris from the greatest yagna families of kerala, performed a yagna with pashu(goat) bali and followed the procedure above. Subsequent yagnas on that basis was not allowed because of massive protest, strange as it may seem from a beef eating keralalite population who would otherwise have no compunctions eating flesh without any form of prayers. Possibily the protest was from only vegetarians there-I dont know. This is not peculiar to nabmoothiris. Appaiah dikshitar performed such a yagna 400 years back. The same is related on his biography and records preserved on him, and further confirmed by paramacharya in a discussion on the same topic.

kiamzattu said:
@pviyer
This is what I have been asking for, can you please quote from the Smritis?
By the way i have one question, we know that 'Smritis' were never a law of the land and by that statement I mean brahmins lived in pockets across Bharat and each of them followed a different set of Smritis. So does all the 'Smritis' that we have assert the statement that animal consumption outside yagna is unacceptable?
Click to expand...
Please read online version of Manu smriti. That is one example. I used to have a similar opinion like yours that it may vary from localized version of smritis. But unfortunately (if you really want to term it that way), there is no escape from it. I know some most knowledgeable namboothiris wanted to revive this practice based on the smriti tradition they followed. I know it was done in tamilnadu and I have already attested the action of appaiah dikshithar. I know from swami narayan's legacy that he tried stopping animal sacrifice in gujarat, a place where brahmins even today dont eat onion. I know that this is true with regard to maharashtra brahmins as some scholars have written a book opposing the ban of pashu bali in yagna. I know madhva brahmins substitute a real pashu with a pashu made of flour( an indication of a prior practice). I know that chaitanya mahaprabhu justified his stance against pashu bali in yagna , based on the statement that brahmins of present age dont have the competence to perform such a yagna as these acts must work with precision. This is available in Chaitanya charitamrita. This statement is indicative that pashu bali in yagna was followed in those days. Kashmiri pandits and Maithili brahmins even use the quotes from scriptures to cook and eat meat regularly. So they cant form a part of the discussion. Even Vaidika andhra brahmins studied in vedas,tell me that the scriptures allow pashu bali in yagna. One of my friends learned in vedas from andhra for 13 years holds the same view. But of course, they dont believe they are competent to perfom such a yagna. But proof is available that this was not contrary to scriptures. Further to this paramacharya himself says that Brahmasutras the highest scripture has statements in justification of this. So if that were true, we have the statement from Vyasa's mouth. I am not aware of any two versions of Brahmasutras as the same text has been used by shankara, madhva and ramanuja.
I have not read Brahmasutras so I go by paramacharya, and no one has contradicted this statement of his.

As far as I am concerned every moment of our life we subject some or the other being to violence. In building a house how many insects are killed. In a house how many insects and rats are killed. Even if a person lives in a hut near a forest, he has to find a way to procure food without harming animals. In a land, it is impossible not to kill and animal or a big insect or a rat in order to create produce. If we live like rishis who subsisted on leavers and fruits falling from trees it is a different matter. Then also we accidentally step our feet on insects and creatures. I remember having visited a sacred place, to have a dip in the sacred pond. Just as I was coming up the stairs, i was aghast to see that I had killed tiny tadpoles who would have grown intofull frogs. They were little more than the size of Big ants. Thus violence happens and I agree that the objective is to minimize violence and not justify non vegetarian food. The vedic yagnas have evolved in a time when people lived in balance with nature. So there have been sacrifices instituted by bygone rishis which may have had multiple purposes. But had it been a matter of sin, they would have actually seen it and visualized it. As I said there is a situation in which people kill others during a war with a person ready to combat him. In that case who gave them the right to kill the others in a war. If India stops maintaining an army and indulge in violence that comes with it, you and I would be forced to eat beef and if we dont we would have to be prepared not to live. Even our right to stay vegetarian is because of someone who practices violence. We thus know that a blanket acceptance of violence wherein everyone is allowed to kill under all circumstances cannot be acceptable. Similarly I wouldnt be surprised if there are similar injunctions on Bali. The shastras mostly confirm it as we know from the practices of tradition bound brahmins in most of India. This cannot be used as an excuse for a blanket right to kill and eat animals. Its however upto you not to eat animals, but the position of shastras is clear. There is a samanya rule and a visesha rule. Visesha rule is applicable only to concerned parties, provided the person who follows that rule , comes under jurisdiction of certain other laws. We have the civil law and the millitary law as an example.
Regards,
PV
 
One more thing, about whether all versions of smritis concerning it have the same view that meat outside yagnas is unacceptable. My answer is most definately not. There is also no need for looking at every smriti version, because much of this is likely to be adulterated. We can only take pramanam from our own local tradition as we need not be concerned if it is okay to eat meat outside yagnas. In many of north Indian smritis, though I have no access to it, it is likely that somethings are permitted .
Our dravida versions of smritis, do not allow it. We know that from the traditional laws of kerala, andhra, tamilnad , maharashtra, gujarat,karnataka. If we accept the culture of some other tradition as pramanam , we may be subjected to sin , if its untrue. But even if south indian versions that reject consumption of meat outside yagnas in untrue, we attain no harm.
But the prevalance of vegetarianism among brahmins in most of India, is a warning, that somewhere people realized that these are sinful. The real question to worry about is whether or not animal can be sacrificed in yagnas to which I have already replied. Trying to study every smriti available everywhere in every version is futile when your own tradition is sufficiently restrictive!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top