• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus: Kancha Ilaiah

Status
Not open for further replies.

mkrishna100

Well-known member
Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus: Kancha Ilaiah
The claims that only Muslims and Christians eat the meat of cattle is empirically and historically false, says the Dalit political scientist.

http://scroll.in/article/714661/bee...r-caste-culture-on-other-hindus-kancha-ilaiah

Professor Kancha Ilaiah burst into popular consciousness with his bestseller Why I Am Not a Hindu – A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy. Currently the director of the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University in Hyderabad, Ilaiah peels away the layers of meanings shrouding the ban imposed on cattle slaughter in some states.

Do you think a ban on beef is a cultural imposition on certain sections of Hindus, Muslims and Christians?
It is definitely a cultural imposition, more particularly on indigenous groups – tribals and Dalits. The question of cultural imposition on Muslims and Christians comes later.

Why do you say that?
Historically, all Indian masses, including the Brahmins, used to eat beef, both in what is called the Vedic and the post-Vedic period. Gautam Buddha rebelled against this tradition because during his time there was a huge consumption of beef by the priestly class. Buddha asked people not to kill cows for sacrifice, not to kill beyond what they needed for consumption. From that stage to the modern period, most of the untouchables, for instance, the Dalits in south India, sustained themselves on beef in summer, when there used to be massive food scarcity. They would eat even dead or diseased cattle.

In my own village, when I was a child, there were about 70 to 80 Dalit families. I remember they used to have full-stomach food in summer only when they were given cattle either sick or dead. They never received rice, millet or any regular food. This situation continues even now.

As for Muslims, meat has been a historical and religiously accepted food. Again, all Muslims were and are not as poverty-stricken as Dalits were. They have other food resources.

So Muslims and Christians are not the only consumers of beef in India, as is often made out?
Yes, and this can be seen even today. In the city of Hyderabad, during the month of Ramzan, Muslims eat haleem, whether of lamb or beef or chicken, only after they break their fast at sunset and after the evening prayers. But the other communities, including the Brahmin youths, start eating haleem at 4.30 pm. A major portion of beef-haleem in restaurants popular for this savoury dish is consumed by non-Muslims even before the iftaar time. In essence, beef is consumed in much higher quantities by non-Muslims than Muslims. The consumption of beef by Christians in India is very little.

Culturally, what is being attempted is to use the state – that too, a democratic state – to destroy their food culture, their protein availability and food choice. “Their” stands for Dalits, Muslims, Christians and all those whose food habit included beef or who want to eat it. Choice is very important in a modern democracy.

I respect those who don’t want to eat beef or mutton. There are two communities who definitely don’t eat meat – Brahmins, particularly South Indian Brahmins, and Banias. They have become vegetarians over a period of time. What do you think will happen if tomorrow a dictator thinks that even plants have life and concludes that killing plants is worse than slaughtering one animal? After all, to feed a family you need to kill several lady’s fingers, several brinjals, several tomatoes. But if you kill a bull, an entire family can survive on it for a week.

What are the ideas driving this cultural imposition?
These ideas were generated from the later Shaivite tradition with Shankaracharya. This was in response to Buddhists being beef-eaters and practising certain food restraints. Buddhists were never vegetarians. The real vegetarians were the Jains. But to counter the so-called theory of violence of Buddhists, Shankaracharya started a vegetarian campaign among Brahmins and upper castes. It was this campaign of Shankaracharya that turned the Brahmins of South India, much before those of North India, into vegetarians.

But that was in the past. What is the idea driving this cultural imposition today?
Today, South Indian Brahmins, even those educated in modern institutions, remain culturally embedded in their families. Their mindset operates as negatively on food culture as it does on the practice of untouchability. Even the best of the educated Brahmins or Banias practise untouchability, so deeply ingrained is the idea in them. This idea constitutes the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] ideological agenda for establishing cultural hegemony. To achieve this goal, the RSS has, among other things, turned beef into a Muslim-Hindu issue.

So the ban on beef is a device to create a monolithic Hindu community?
Yes. You also have to ask the question: when did the idea of not eating beef and meat become strong? Gandhi was essentially a Jain; he campaigned for cow protection as well as vegetarianism. It was Gandhi’s campaign that took vegetarianism to non-Brahmin social groups that were meat-arian. The only people who were not really influenced by Gandhi’s cow protection campaign and vegetarianism were Muslims, Christians and Dalits. If the Dalits were not affected, it was because Ambedkar immediately started a counter-campaign.

Counter-campaign?
When Gandhi began to work around the concept of Harijan and mobilising people around it, he had put in some conditions. One, they shouldn’t eat meat. Two, they should pray in praise of Ram. Ambedkar realised that what Gandhi was doing was literally converting the Dalits to Hinduism. Ambedkar, therefore, started a campaign arguing that the Gandhian campaign was not going to help the Dalits. Ambedkar said the Dalits had to be respected along with their cultural roots. He said, you can’t ask them to give up their culture of food, their culture of leather technology.

Ambedkar went on to debate the food issues. He said, all right, Dalits should give up eating dead cattle, but they shouldn’t give up beef. He said this because Buddhists have a culture of eating beef. For instance, Buddhism in China, Japan and Korea allows multicultural food. They eat pork, beef, and don’t consider any food culture taboo. Ambedkar was trying to impart a multicultural dimension to food practices in India, as against Gandhian vegetarianism. Ambedkar wrote at length on the evolution of people’s food culture.

Why did the RSS adopt cow protection as one of the principal items on its agenda?
The RSS’s logic is that the cow has to be given protection because it gives Indians milk, the reason why it has been historically treated as a divine animal. My point is that India does not live on cow milk; India lives on buffalo milk. Now why doesn’t the RSS ask for buffalo protection?

If you look at the law in Gujarat, it has extended the ban on cow slaughter to include the bull and the bullock as well, but it is silent on buffalo meat. During Modi’s period, more and more buffaloes started getting killed even as more and more cows began getting reared around milk-production factories. They started exporting buffalo meat.

This is absolute racism. Seventy five percent of milk in India is buffalo milk. Yet you kill the buffalo because it is a black animal. American racism once upon a time destroyed the buffalo population there. RSS racism will lead to the killing of buffaloes. You see, the buffalo has always been present in India. But the cow came to India with the Aryans. The RSS wants to protect the Aryan animal. This casteist and racist approach has been extended to food culture. This is dangerous.

Are you saying that in order to establish the cultural hegemony of upper castes, the RSS seeks to project the Muslims as the only consumers of beef?
The internal discourse of the RSS, as evident from its publications, states that. But empirically, they are wrong. They claim that the only consumers of beef in India are Muslims and, therefore, they should give up eating it. That the Muslims are cow-killers and we the Hindus should fight them. This argument worked very well with the upper-caste Hindus.

But what is dangerous is this idea that the RSS has taken to the OBCs, who are more and more rallying around it. The RSS’s recruitment of OBCs has undeniably increased after the Babri Masjid demolition, and it is doing so by creating a theoretical framework. The RSS says that not eating beef is Hindu culture and, therefore, Indian culture. The obverse is that consuming beef is alien culture ‒ Muslim and Christian.

They are trying to argue two things theoretically, in a very funny way. One, they are saying that there was no culture of eating beef before the advent of Muslims. This is absolutely false. Of late, they have started saying that even untouchability was created by the Muslims. It is through this theoretical framework that they are trying to reach out to the Dalits and also convert them to Hinduism and vegetarianism.

They are extending the argument among the OBCs that eating meat is not Hindu culture. This is wrong. Meat has always been part of marriage feasts of OBCs and feasts hosted during death rituals. But the OBCs in south India are giving up these cultural practices. I challenge the RSS to prove which of the Hindu gods and which of the Hindu scriptures mandated that beef should not be eaten. Which Hindu god has said he won’t accept beef or pork as a spiritual offering? They have the Vedas, the Upanishads, Bhgavad Gita, etc. The RSS has now synthesised a spiritual sanctity around the Bhagvad Gita. Let them show me one line that says that beef should not be eaten.

But what you have said is also proof that the RSS has been successful in popularising its ideas.
Earlier, the RSS used to propagate vegetarianism among Brahmin-Jain-Bania families. They then took this idea to the RSS shakhas. Now the VHP and the Bajrang Dal are spreading it. They say they are doing it as part of their attempt to popularise the non-violent theory. There couldn’t be a bigger joke than that. If non-violence is your divine theory, why do you have idols and images representing violence in divine form? Was Ram non-violent? Was Krishna non-violent? Did they not kill enemies? How can they, therefore, argue that the killing of birds or bulls is violence?

Secondly, my most important issue is that if you ban killing of animals and leave them to die a natural death, would the agrarian economy survive? Who would rear the cattle then? Why do people rear chickens? Not to put in a museum, right? You breed, say, 100 chickens and you kill 10 of them at the end of the month. You rear them more and only to eat them at some point.

Why do people rear cattle in rural India? Because cows give birth to calves, and calves become bulls. Before the mechanisation of agriculture, bulls tilled the land and provided agrarian labour, so to speak. Tractors have now taken over the role of bullocks. It must be remembered that India doesn’t depend on cow milk. The cattle have other economic benefits – manure is used for fertiliser and fuel, and once it dies or is killed, its skin is sent to the tannery and bones are used for making items such as combs.

But when the economic benefits of the cattle diminish, it is better to kill them for food, and sell its skins and bones. A dead cow isn’t buried because its bones and skin can’t be utilised then. So who is going to bear the expenses of an ageing or sick cow? The RSS is destroying the Indian agrarian economy. In the future the agrarian economy will not have the cow and the bull – and the benefits arising from them will be denied to villagers. Instead, you will have a few gaushalas, built and looked after by the RSS, the VHP and the Brahmins.

Will the cattle slaughter go underground?
Illicit consumption will take place, particularly among Dalits and tribals, because they don’t live in the vicinity of law-enforcing agencies. But the consumption of beef by Muslims will be curtailed. This is because the Muslim community is urbanised and is not as widely dispersed as other social groups. Apart from a reduction in consumption, the ban in the city of Mumbai will adversely affect traders who became rich because of beef, bone and leather exports.

What do you think about the quantum of punishment – a person violating the ban can get five years of imprisonment in Maharashtra and 10 years in Haryana?
The problem is that the central government can’t make a law because agriculture is a state subject. It says it will make a model law and circulate it among the states. This is a very dangerous development as it tacitly encourages states to ban cow slaughter.

As for the quantum of punishment, I think cattle seem to enjoy greater privileges than some sections of society. There should have been protests – Muslims and Christians should have come out on the streets. For one reason or another, Muslims are scared. Mayawati and other Dalit leaders should join hands with Muslims and Christians to oppose this dangerous move of the state to determine people's food habits and challenge their cultural roots and their right to choose.

(Professor Kancha Ilaiah wishes to clarify that the views expressed in this interview are his own and not of Maulana Azad National Urdu University’s.)

Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores.
 
OP
OP
mkrishna100

mkrishna100

Well-known member
Historically, all Indian masses, including the Brahmins, used to eat beef, both in what is called the Vedic and the post-Vedic period. Gautam Buddha rebelled against this tradition because during his time there was a huge consumption of beef by the priestly class. Buddha asked people not to kill cows for sacrifice, not to kill beyond what they needed for consumption.

The following is a quote from the above interview . If if is true that Brahmins did eat meat in the Vedic , post Vedic period , is there any proof in the Vedas regarding the need to offer meat for sacrifice ?
 

yesmohan

Well-known member
Let the RSS, VHP & the Bajrang Dal and BJP codify their own law banning non-vegetarians to become their members.
 

sangom

Well-known member
The following is a quote from the above interview . If if is true that Brahmins did eat meat in the Vedic , post Vedic period , is there any proof in the Vedas regarding the need to offer meat for sacrifice ?
Aiyooooooooo! mkrishnaji! If you just go through yajurveda or any of the older smritis you will find how each sacrificial animal (from goat to elephant?) has to be killed, how its carcass is to be marked and cut and which portion/s are the entitlement of which of the sacrificial priest. You cannot simply sit and order all such "divine" knowledge on your table like in a hotel; you have to get up, read our scriptures and understand them thoroughly.
 
OP
OP
mkrishna100

mkrishna100

Well-known member
The following article ( Posted Separately as Part-1 and Part-2 ) provides some information regarding reference to eating meat in the Vedas and other Hindu Scriptures . For those who cant go through the entire article the highlighted portion called "Answer Summary " gives the gist of the article . To read the article more clearly click on the link below that gives the entire article in a better readable form .


Part-1
Do the Vedic literature allow meat-eating? Did Hinduism adopt vegetarianism from Buddhism?

http://www.thespiritualscientist.co...d-hinduism-adopt-vegetarianism-from-buddhism/

Answer summary:
1. Vedic literature not uni-form, but omni-form: not just one way for all people, but multiple ways depending on levels of people. 2. Vegetarianism is their recommendation, as seen from the verses below, but meat-eating is their concession. eg. doctor to diabetic patient: medicines and sugar-less diet are the recommendation, sweet once a week is a concession.
3. When patient misrepresents concession to be recommendation, the doctor rejects the concession entirely to prevent such future abuse. That’s what Lord Buddha did.
4. Buddhism brought to the forefront of practical application the recommendations for vegetarianism that had been gradually sidelined.
5. Vedic literature lead the way in pioneering a global elevation of human consciousness through the adoption of vegetarianism.

*** Quotes that disapprove, even denounce, meat-eating Rig Veda: “One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.” Rig-veda (10.87.16)
Manu-Samhita: “Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.” (Manu-samhita 5.48-49) “He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as the slayers of the animal. There is no greater sinner than that man who though not worshiping the gods or the ancestors, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.” (Manu-samhita 5.51-52) “If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.” (Manu-samhita 5.37-38) “He who injures harmless creatures from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness in this life or the next.” (Manu-samhita 5.45) “By subsisting on pure fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics in the forest, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh. Me he [mam sah] will devour in the next world, whose flesh I eat in this life; the wise declare this to be the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ [mam sah].” (Manu-samhita 5.54-55) “He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. He who does not injure any (creature) attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.” (Manu-samhita 5.46-47) “By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation.” (Manu-samhita 6.60) Mahabharata: “He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next] birth.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47) “The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it–all these are to be considered meat-eaters.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.40) “The sins generated by violence curtail the life of the perpetrator. Therefore, even those who are anxious for their own welfare should abstain from meat-eating.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.33) Bhishma started, “Numberless discourses took place between the Rishis on this subject, O scion of Kuru’s race. Listen, O Yudhisthira, what their opinion was. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.7) “The highly wise seven celestial Rishis, the Valakshillyas, and those Rishis who drink the rays of the sun, all speak highly of abstention from meat. The self-created Manu has said that the man who does not eat meat, or who does not kill living creatures, or who does not cause them to be killed, is a friend of all creatures. Such a man is incapable of being oppressed by any creature. He enjoys the confidence of all living beings. He always enjoys the praise of the pious. The virtuous Narada has said that that man who wishes to multiply his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures meets with disaster. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.9-12) “That man, who having eaten meat, gives it up afterwards wins merit by such a deed that is so great that a study of all the Vedas or a performance, O Bharata, of all the sacrifices [Vedic rituals], cannot give its like. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.16) “That learned person who gives to all living creatures the gift of complete assurance is forsooth regarded as the giver of lifebreaths in this world. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.18) “Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.20) “What necessity be said of those innocent and healthy creatures gifted with love of life, when they are sought to be killed by sinful wretches living by slaughter? Therefore, O King, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of the celestial region, and of happiness. Abstention of injury [to others] is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truth from which all duty emanates. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.21-23) “Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature is killed it cannot be procured. Hence is the fault of eating flesh. The celestials who live upon Svaha, Svadha, and nectar, are given to truth and sincerity. Those persons, however, who are for satisfying the sensation of taste, should be known as Rakshasas [flesh-eating demons] pervaded by the quality of Darkness. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.24-25) “If there were nobody who ate flesh, then there would be nobody to slay living creatures. The man who slays living creatures kills them for the sake of the person who eats flesh. If flesh were not considered as food, there would then be no destruction of living creatures. It is for the sake of the eater that the destruction of living entities is carried on in the world. Since, O you of great splendor, the period of life is shortened by persons who kill living creatures or cause them to be killed, it is clear that the person who seeks his own good should give up meat altogether. Those dreadful persons who are engaged in the destruction of living beings never find protectors when they are in need. Such persons should always be molested and punished even as beast of prey. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.29-32) “That man who seeks to multiply his own flesh by (eating) the flesh of others has to live in this world in great anxiety, and after death has to take birth in indifferent races and families. High Rishis given to the observance of vows and self-control have said that abstention from meat is worthy of praise, productive of fame and Heaven, and a great satisfaction itself. This I heard formerly, O son of Kunti, from Markandeya when that Rishi discoursed on the sins of eating flesh. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.34-36) “He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39) “That wretched man who kills living creatures for the sake of those who would eat them commits great sin. The eater’s sin is not as great. That wretched man who, following the path of religious rites and sacrifices as laid down in the Vedas, would kill a living creature from a desire to eats its flesh, will certainly go to hell. That man who having eaten flesh abstains from it afterwards acquires great merit on account of such abstention from sin. He who arranges for obtaining flesh, he who approves of those arrangements, he who kills, he who buys or sells, he who cooks, and he who eats it, [acquire the sin of those who] are all considered as eaters of flesh. [Therefore] that man who wishes to avoid disaster should abstain from the meat of every living creature. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.44-48) “Listen to me, O king of kings, as I tell you this, O sinless one, there is absolute happiness in abstaining from meat, O king. He who practices severe austerities for a century, and he who abstains from meat, are both equally meritorious. This is my opinion. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.52-53) “Yudhisthira said: Alas, those cruel men who, not caring for various other sorts of food, want only flesh, are really like great Rakshasas [meat-eating demons]. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.1) “Bhishma said: That man who wishes to increase his own flesh by the meat of another living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel than he. In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his life. Hence, one should show mercy to the lives of others as he does to his own life. Forsooth, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed. There is great sin attached to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.11-13) “There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit, either in this world or in the next, to the practice of mercy to all living creatures. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.19) “Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. They who eat the flesh of animals who are desirous of life, are themselves [later] eaten by the animals they eat. This is my opinion. Since he has eaten me, I shall eat him in return. This, O Bharata, forms the character as Mamsah [meaning flesh] of Mamsah [me he, or “me he” will eat for having eaten him]. The destroyer is always slain. After him the eater meets with the same fate. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35) “He who acts with hostility towards another becomes victim of similar deeds done by that other. Whatever acts one does in whatever bodies, he has to suffer the consequences thereof in those bodies. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.36-37) “Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39) “Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty.” (Mahabharata, Anu.116.40) Bhagavata Purana: “Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world.” (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
mkrishna100

mkrishna100

Well-known member
Part-2

Transcription by- Keshavgopal Das & Ambuj Gupta

Question- Are there references for eating meat in the Vedic literature? Is the adoption of vegetarianism within Hinduism a later feature caused by the influence of Buddhism? Does the Vedic literature directly recommend vegetarianism?
Answer- First question, are there references to eating meat in the Vedic literature. Yes, there are.
But these references are not recommendations. They are concessions. Along with this answer I have pasted from various Vedic scriptures references that explicitly recommend vegetarianism. So there are references from Rig Veda, from Manu Samhita, from extensively from the Mahabharata and also from Srimad Bhagavatam; the Bhagavat Puran. So these four literature are considered to be ones which have influenced modern day Hinduism to a large extent. Rig Veda is considered by scholars to be oldest of all scriptures which is preserved even today in its letters. Manu Samhita is widely recognized as law book for Hinduism. Mahabharata is a veritable compendium of of traditional dharma. And the Srimad Bhagavatam is considered to be the ripened fruit of the devotional essence of the Vedic literature.
So you will find that here there are so many references that, if by example Manu Samhita says man should never obtain food that is got by injury to other living beings. Once we understand the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of slaughtering and slaying other living beings, why should one eat meat at all. One should give it up entirely. So there are multiple references here. He who permits the slaughter of animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he ho buy or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, he who eats it, must all be considered the slaves of the animals. There is no greater sin on that man who though not worshiping the God or ancestor seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of others, Manu Samhita 5.51-52. Further Bhishma Pitamah specially Anushasan parva, when he is instructing Yudhisthir Maharaja in the Mahabharata extensively recommends vegetarian food. So you can have a look at these references yourself. But coming to the important point, these references do exist. Some people who want to justify their meat eating habits may find out some references which also allow meat eating. If we look at those references practically all of them are in the context of Yagyam or sacrifice. So in the verse which I read out in Manu Samhita also, it is said that if one is sacrificing for the God’s then and then alone meat is allowed. Killing animal is allowed and then the meat can under certain circumstances be consumed.
Why was this sort of statement given in the Vedic literature? The Vedic literature are not just offering spirituality in one form. The spiritual processes offered in the Vedic literature are not uniform but omniform. Uniform means it is only one form, for example we had the _____ religions. Jesus is the only way. Follow Jesus and you will go back to God otherwise you are going to hell. Mohammad is the zeal of all prophets. If you don’t follow Mohammad you are going to go to hell. So this is only one way path. The Vedic literature don’t talk about only this way or hell otherwise, my way or the highway. The Vedic literature recognize that different people have different levels of adhikar. Adhikar means, capacity to practice spiritual life. And based on their individual capacities they can follow recommendations at different levels. That is why for those who are addicted to meat eating, meat eating is allowed under certain restricted conditions. So these statements in the scriptures are concessions, not recommendations.
What is the difference between a concession and a recommendation? If a patient goes to a doctor, the doctor tells him you have diabetes. You take this medicine in morning and evening and you absolutely avoid all sugar. So among the two things the doctor had said the taking medicines is the recommendation. That’s what the doctor wants the patient to do. On the other part don’t take sugar. The patient said I can’t live without sugar. No, I can’t live without sugar. I must take sugar. Doctor is ok, you take sugar. Take one sweet once a week. Then the patient comes back and starts telling oh! The doctors has instructed me to take a sweet. Now that is not instruction. That is a not a recommendation, it is a concession. Concession means that what is not necessarily good for me but because I want it I am allowed to do it. Recommendation means I am told to do it.
So the Vedic literatures recommendation is be vegetarian but the concession is you can be non-vegetarian under certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? They are if we perform yagya in which the animal is sacrificed and then after that the animal is offered to Kali or some other devi or devata and then that food is taken that meat is consumed. So this creates certain restrictions. That only on the holy days related with the devi. Only when the proper yagya or proper worship and sacrifice is happening at that time the animal can be sacrificed. So just as the doctor’s purpose is to restrict the eating of the sugar. He would prefer, he would recommend not taking sugar at all. But if the patient is not capable of following that instruction, doctor recommends that you take the medicines regularly and he allowed as a concession to take sugar occasionally.
Now if the patient comes back home and starts telling, my doctor told me to take sugar. That’s his instruction. All of you had make arrangements for giving me sugar. And not only that, he not only misrepresents, the doctor did not recommend, doctor gave a concession but he says he changes it not once a week but every day. Not every day, every day morning, after noon evening doctor instructing him to take a sugar. That is not at all true. So in such a situation the doctor may come and tell that nothing doing, sugar should not be taken at all. Sugar is very harmful. Sugar should not be taken at all. And strongly he rejects. He realizes that the concessions that he had given were misused. And then he dispenses away with the concessions entirely. This is exactly what happened with Lord Buddha.
Now the acharyas in the Vedic tradition recognize Lord Buddha to be an avtar of the Lord, as he is mentioned in the Bhagavat Puran, as he is mentioned in Jaideva Goswami’s Geet Govinda and several others scriptures. But ________, when Lord Buddha came he rejected the Vedic literature because people were misusing there concessions for meat eating and converting them into licenses and justifications for meat eating. So Buddha said I ahimsa paramo dharmo, no meat eating at all. And historically speaking Buddhism also attracted a lot of followers. And then because of the influence of Buddhism when to the natural human moral conscience, the obvious reality of the violence that is involved in killing animals and eating them, even in non sacrificial contexts became obvious then even the Hindu leaders reformed themselves and then they started emphasizing vegetarianism much more strongly. So people who were getting attracted to Buddhism, they were told if you think Buddhism is good because there is vegetarianism in it. Vegetarianism is there in Vedic literature also. So it is not that Hindus adopted vegetarianism because of their influence of Buddhism. The influence of Buddhism brought to fore front what was originally there in the Vedic literature but what had been side lined, what had been neglected. So yes, the development of Buddhism did lead to the increased emphasis on vegetarianism. But that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is not mentioned in the Vedic literature. It was as, you can see from all these references. But Buddhism did the service of getting back to the fore front in their Hindu tradition.
Now moving forward several of the acharyas starting from Shakaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, these were three great systematizes of Hinduism. In fact from the fifth century B.C to fifth century A.D, Buddhism practically predominated India, and to some extent Jainism also in some parts of India. But from the seventh century onwards when Shankaracharya appeared, there was a great revival of Hinduism. So because still substantially there were people who were Hindus and they were saying that the Vedic literature tell us to eat meat so therefore we have to eat meat. Then the acharyas introduce some further modifications as this based also on the verse which I read out from Manu Samhita- That if at all you say that you have to sacrifice animals, make animals out of clay, make animals out of wheat flour. So if you have to sacrifice a goat, this is not exactly a invention of the acharyas. These references are there in the scriptures but they were brought to the fore front again. Those who started saying that how can you say that meat should not be eaten because the Vedic literature say that in yagya animals have to be sacrificed. So then the acharyas showed references, that indicated that one need not kill living animals. One can just make replica of animals using clay or specially wheat flower.
Similarly in the Kali temple instead of offering Her blood many temples now offer hibiscus flowers. So hibiscus is red in color. Blood is red in color. And Goddess certainly pleased by offering of the hibiscus flower also. Actually the Goddess never wants any meat or blood. But because the worshipers want it, to keep them under regulation, the sacrifices were originally started. Now in the original Vedic literature where are the animals cut and eaten? There are different kind of yagyas depending on the modes of the people who are involved. So the highest level of yagyas are, there if at all animals is used, the animal is put to death using the power of the mantra and then he gets the new body which everybody else sees and he gets the human body or a celestial body and he continues onward getting a jump start, getting a rapid leap forward in the evolution through the Vedic species. But in some other sacrifices, yes because the sacrifices were involving people who wanted to eat meat, so when the animal would be killed, the meat would be eaten also. This was for those people who are in rajo guna and specially in tamo guna, in the modes of passion and especially ignorance. But even these sort of sacrifices were stopped by the acharyas who systematized and revived Hinduism. Now at present the Hindu tradition is largely vegetarian. And all over the world people are recognizing the value of vegetarianism because of the substantial ecological problems created by trying to eat meat. You can refer to the article food for health which is posted below, which give the brief analysis of the problems because of which the world is turning over towards vegetarian food. The Vedic tradition, the Hindu tradition, pioneers in this context. And rather than searching out obscure verses from some Vedic literature to justify ones meat eating. Let us recognize the Vedic tradition, acclaimed vegetarianism right from the beginning. And it was brought into the fore front by Buddhism and now it has become the torch bearer for the rest of the world where the vegetarian alternative is not just the alternative but it is the necessity for the survival of our planet and for the survival of humanity. Thank you.
 

sangom

Well-known member
mkrishnaji,

Reading internet sites will only give slightly warped information, because each of these fellows has an agenda.

Rigveda X th. book 87-16 forms part of what is somewhat well known (at least among tabra circles) as "rakShOghnam", this word meaning "that which will kill (the) rakShases". FYKI, some verses from this used to be chanted and the agraharams circumambulated during the evenings of kArttikai month, the vAdhyAr dispensing vibhUti prasAdam after chanting of vishNu sahasranAma and other mantras by all the people. Hence X-87-16 is, naturally, a prayer to the dEvata of that sUkta, viz., rakShOhAgni to protect the worshipper/s from the evil beings called rakShases.

The first rik of this rakShOghnam goes as under:

रक्षॊहणम् वाजिनमाजि घर्मि
मित्रं प्रतिष्ठमुपयामि शर्म
शिशानो अग्निः क्रतुभिस्समिद्ध-
स्सनो दिवासरिषःपातु नक्तम् १०-८७-१

(rakṣohaṇam vājinamāji gharmi
mitraṃ pratiṣṭhamupayāmi śarma
śiśāno agniḥ kratubhissamiddha-
ssano divāsariṣaḥpātu naktam 10-87-1)

Approx. meaning: I offer ghee oblation to agni, the most powerful and the destroyer of rakshases. I take shelter under this agni who is a friend of the yajamanas (those who perform yajnas) and is the most exalted of all. Let agni with his flames made the most powerful by us humans who are fully immersed in our karma (of doing homa), protect us day & night from the rakshases who torture us.

The sUkta proceeds in this vein and in X-87-16 what is said is this:

यः पौरुषॆयॆण क्रविषासमङ्क्ते
यॊ अश्व्यॆन पशुना यातुधानः
यो अघ्न्यायाभरति क्षीरमग्ने
तेषां शीर्षाणि हरसापिवृश्च १०-८७-१६

(yaḥ pauruṣeyeṇa kraviṣāsamaṅkte
yo aśvyena paśunā yātudhānaḥ
yo aghnyāyābharati kṣīramagne
teṣāṃ śīrṣāṇi harasāpivṛśca 10-87-16)

Approximate meaning: O agni! (you) cut off with your power, the heads of those rakshases who eat human flesh, who eat the flesh of our team of horses, and drink the milk of our cows leaving nothing even for the calves.

This direct, and comparatively easy rik has been twisted out of shape in the website http://www.thespiritualscientist.co...d-hinduism-adopt-vegetarianism-from-buddhism/, cited by you. It is a con job, to say the least.

I am reproducing what I wrote in another place :

Here are a few references to how meat was perceived in some of our venerated scriptures:

Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.” [In fact, on the night previous to the brahmin marriage, the priest, after completing the prescribed rites, is supposed to declare "gO ha, gO Ha" to notify that the slaughter of cows may start. I don't know if any vAdhyAr of today knows this even.]



Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.” Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”

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

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Hinduism’s greatest propagator (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, vol.3, p. 536).

Adi Shankaracharya’ commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen.

Hope you will now be able to sift the grain from the chaff.
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
Vedic Brahmins were running after " flesh" ?

They were not "running after flesh" in the sense of sex enjoyment, but they surely were under the impression that there was nothing abnormal in cooking and eating animal flesh.
 

P.J.

Well-known member
Mahatma Gandhi's Advice Against Beef Ban In India Makes As Much Sense Today

Mahatma Gandhi's Advice Against Beef Ban In India Makes As Much Sense Today


October 5, 2015

In light of the Dadri lynching, this reminder from the pages of history comes as a respite for many who stand opposed to beef ban in India. Originally, published in The Wire, the following is an excerpt (translated from Hindi) from Gandhi's prayer discourse, gleaned from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.


It's a piece wherein Gandhi reasons why it's futile to ban cow slaughter in India, simply because it's a land of many religions, and coercing a ban on one can only further communal hatred against another.


The excerpt begins with Gandhi's dismissal of thousands of telegrams, beseeching the then President of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad to ban cow slaughter in India:


Rajendra Babu tells me that he has received some 50,000 postcards, between 25,000 and 30,000 letters and many thousands of telegrams demanding a ban on cow-slaughter. I spoke to you about this before. Why this flood of telegrams and letters? They have had no effect.


I have another telegram which says that a friend has started a fast for this cause. In India no law can be made to ban cow-slaughter. I do not doubt that Hindus are forbidden the slaughter of cows. I have been long pledged to serve the cow but how can my religion also be the religion of the rest of the Indians? It will mean coercion against those Indians who are not Hindus.


mg1_1444030058.jpeg
Wikimedia Commons


Gandhi goes on to explain how 'coercion' cannot be a justifiable ground to question religion. India is a land of many religions, and what's faithfully acceptable to one, shouldn't bother another:



We have been shouting from the house-tops that there will be no coercion in the matter of religion. We have been reciting verses from the Koran at the prayer. But if anyone were to force me to recite these verses I would not like it. How can I force anyone not to slaughter cows unless he is himself so disposed? It is not as if there were only Hindus in the Indian Union. There are Muslims, Parsis, Christians and other religious groups here.


The assumption of the Hindus that India now has become the land of the Hindus is erroneous. India belongs to all who live here. If we stop cow slaughter by law here and the very reverse happens in Pakistan, what will be the result? Supposing they say Hindus would not be allowed to visit temples because it was against Shariat to worship idols? I see God even in a stone but how do I harm others by this belief? If therefore I am stopped from visiting temples I would still visit them. I shall therefore suggest that these telegrams and letters should cease. It is not proper to waste money on them.


Cow slaughter, according to Gandhi, manifests itself in several different arrangements, some which Hindus themselves favour for it suits their convenience and livelihood:



Besides some prosperous Hindus themselves encourage cow-slaughter. True, they do not do it with their own hands. But who sends all the cows to Australia and other countries where they are slaughtered and whence shoes manufactured from cow hide are sent back to India? I know an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu. He used to feed his children on beef soup. On my asking him why he did that he said there was no sin in consuming beef as medicine.


We really do not stop to think what true religion is and merely go about shouting that cow-slaughter should be banned by law. In villages Hindus make bullocks carry huge burdens which almost crush the animals. Is it not cow-slaughter, albeit slowly carried out? I shall therefore suggest that the matter should not be pressed in the Constituent Assembly…

Gandhi then proceeds to answer a delicate question which asks whether Muslims as a race can be trusted by Indian Hindus:



I have been asked, ‘Since in view of the atrocities being perpetuated by Muslims it is difficult to decide which of the Muslims are to be trusted, what should be our attitude towards the Muslims in the Indian Union? What should the non-Muslims in Pakistan do?


I have already answered this question. I again repeat that all the religions of India today are being put to the test. It has to be seen how the various religious groups such as the Sikhs, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Christians conduct themselves and how they carry on the affairs of India. Pakistan may be said to belong to Muslims but the Indian Union belongs to all. If you shake off cowardice and become brave you will not have to consider how you are to behave towards the Muslims. But today there is cowardice in us. For this I have already accepted the blame.


In the end, Gandhi's hope is to see his fellow countrymen spreading not hatred, but love towards Muslims:



I am still wondering how my 30 years’ teaching has been so ineffective. Why did I assume, to begin with, that non-violence could be a weapon of cowards? Even now if we can really become brave and love the Muslims, the Muslims will have to stop and think what they could gain by practising treachery against us. They will return love for love. Can we keep the crores of Muslims in the Indian Union as slaves? He who makes slaves of others himself becomes a slave. If we answer sword with sword, the lathi with lathi and kick with kick, we cannot expect that things will be different in Pakistan. We shall then lose our freedom as easily as we have gained it.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/indi...h-sense-today-as-it-did-back-then-245875.html
 

vgane

Well-known member
Sad that M.K.Gandhi to earn the coveted Mahatma title did not allow any of the Hindu customs and cultural practices to be recognized in our own country!

Look at what a humongous monster that has been created now...A Muslim minister in UP has the temerity to approach United Nations about the problems being faced by M in India despite breeding like pigs and multiplying the numbers!
 

sangom

Well-known member
Sad that M.K.Gandhi to earn the coveted Mahatma title did not allow any of the Hindu customs and cultural practices to be recognized in our own country!

Look at what a humongous monster that has been created now...A Muslim minister in UP has the temerity to approach United Nations about the problems being faced by M in India despite breeding like pigs and multiplying the numbers!

I am not a gandhian, not an admirer either. But the honorific "Mahatma" was not confeered by some institution or Government; it is said that Tagore once used this adjective and much of undivided India echoed that sentiment. That apart, I want to state that today, there is no point in bad mouthing, with degrading remarks like "breeding like pigs and multiplying the numbers!", the Muslim community. The hindus should have revolted before 15-08-1947 on a national scale and driven all muslims to Pakistan. But neither the hindus nor the RSS had the guts or wherewithal to do that. So let us not crib like the proverbial "aRutta nAttanAr" who lives out of compulsion, with her brother & his wife, but has a never-ending jealosy towards her brother's wife!

Let us try to be a developed country and allow meat eating to those who want it. After all no sensible dairy farmer will butcher a cow which gives milk, so long as the yield does not drop drastically. Very rich tabras also used to sell the old and non-yielding cows to somebody but will be reluctant to answer the question why they themselves could not maintain the (non-yielding) cow till its death. I am talking of old times here.
 

P.J.

Well-known member
Do the Vedic literature allow meat-eating?

Do the Vedic literature allow meat-eating?


Answer summary:

1. Vedic literature not uni-form, but omni-form: not just one way for all people, but multiple ways depending on levels of people.

2. Vegetarianism is their recommendation, as seen from the verses below, but meat-eating is their concession. eg. doctor to diabetic patient: medicines and sugar-less diet are the recommendation, sweet once a week is a concession.


3. When patient misrepresents concession to be recommendation, the doctor rejects the concession entirely to prevent such future abuse. That’s what Lord Buddha did.



4. Buddhism brought to the forefront of practical application the recommendations for vegetarianism that had been gradually sidelined.



5. Vedic literature lead the way in pioneering a global elevation of human consciousness through the adoption of vegetarianism.


***Quotes that disapprove, even denounce, meat-eating

Rig Veda:“One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.”Rig-veda (10.87.16)


Manu-Samhita:“Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat.

Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

(Manu-samhita 5.48-49)

“He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as the slayers of the animal. There is no greater sinner than that man who though not worshiping the gods or the ancestors, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.”

(Manu-samhita 5.51-52)

“If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.”

(Manu-samhita 5.37-38)

“He who injures harmless creatures from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness in this life or the next.”

(Manu-samhita 5.45

)
“By subsisting on pure fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics in the forest, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh. Me he [mam sah] will devour in the next world, whose flesh I eat in this life; the wise declare this to be the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ [mam sah].”

(Manu-samhita 5.54-55)

“He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. He who does not injure any (creature) attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.”

(Manu-samhita 5.46-47)

“By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation.”

(Manu-samhita 6.60)

Mahabharata:“He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next] birth.”

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)

“The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it–all these are to be considered meat-eaters.”

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.40)

“The sins generated by violence curtail the life of the perpetrator. Therefore, even those who are anxious for their own welfare should abstain from meat-eating.”

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.33)

Bhishma started, “Numberless discourses took place between the Rishis on this subject, O scion of Kuru’s race. Listen, O Yudhisthira, what their opinion was.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.7)

“The highly wise seven celestial Rishis, the Valakshillyas, and those Rishis who drink the rays of the sun, all speak highly of abstention from meat.The self-created Manu has said that the man who does not eat meat, or who does not kill living creatures, or who does not cause them to be killed, is a friend of all creatures. Such a man is incapable of being oppressed by any creature. He enjoys the confidence of all living beings. He always enjoys the praise of the pious.

The virtuous Narada has said that that man who wishes to multiply his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures meets with disaster.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.9-12)

“That man, who having eaten meat, gives it up afterwards wins merit by such a deed that is so great that a study of all the Vedas or a performance, O Bharata, of all the sacrifices [Vedic rituals], cannot give its like.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.16)

“That learned person who gives to all living creatures the gift of complete assurance is forsooth regarded as the giver of lifebreaths in this world.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.18)

“Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.20)

“What necessity be said of those innocent and healthy creatures gifted with love of life, when they are sought to be killed by sinful wretches living by slaughter? Therefore, O King, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of the celestial region, and of happiness. Abstention of injury [to others] is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truth from which all duty emanates.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.21-23)


Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature is killed it cannot be procured. Hence is the fault of eating flesh. The celestials who live upon Svaha, Svadha, and nectar, are given to truth and sincerity. Those persons, however, who are for satisfying the sensation of taste, should be known as Rakshasas [flesh-eating demons] pervaded by the quality of Darkness.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.24-25)

“If there were nobody who ate flesh, then there would be nobody to slay living creatures. The man who slays living creatures kills them for the sake of the person who eats flesh. If flesh were not considered as food, there would then be no destruction of living creatures. It is for the sake of the eater that the destruction of living entities is carried on in the world. Since, O you of great splendor, the period of life is shortened by persons who kill living creatures or cause them to be killed, it is clear that the person who seeks his own good should give up meat altogether. Those dreadful persons who are engaged in the destruction of living beings never find protectors when they are in need. Such persons should always be molested and punished even as beast of prey.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.29-32)

“That man who seeks to multiply his own flesh by (eating) the flesh of others has to live in this world in great anxiety, and after death has to take birth in indifferent races and families. High Rishis given to the observance of vows and self-control have said that abstention from meat is worthy of praise, productive of fame and Heaven, and a great satisfaction itself. This I heard formerly, O son of Kunti, from Markandeya when that Rishi discoursed on the sins of eating flesh.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.34-36)

“He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39)

“That wretched man who kills living creatures for the sake of those who would eat them commits great sin. The eater’s sin is not as great. That wretched man who, following the path of religious rites and sacrifices as laid down in the Vedas, would kill a living creature from a desire to eats its flesh, will certainly go to hell. That man who having eaten flesh abstains from it afterwards acquires great merit on account of such abstention from sin. He who arranges for obtaining flesh, he who approves of those arrangements, he who kills, he who buys or sells, he who cooks, and he who eats it, [acquire the sin of those who] are all considered as eaters of flesh. [Therefore] that man who wishes to avoid disaster should abstain from the meat of every living creature.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.44-48)

“Listen to me, O king of kings, as I tell you this, O sinless one, there is absolute happiness in abstaining from meat, O king. He who practices severe austerities for a century, and he who abstains from meat, are both equally meritorious. This is my opinion.

(Mahabharata, Anu.115.52-53)

“Yudhisthira said: Alas, those cruel men who, not caring for various other sorts of food, want only flesh, are really like great Rakshasas [meat-eating demons].

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.1)

“Bhishma said: That man who wishes to increase his own flesh by the meat of another living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel than he. In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his life. Hence, one should show mercy to the lives of others as he does to his own life. Forsooth, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed. There is great sin attached to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it.

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.11-13)
“There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit, either in this world or in the next, to the practice of mercy to all living creatures.

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.19)

“Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. They who eat the flesh of animals who are desirous of life, are themselves [later] eaten by the animals they eat. This is my opinion. Since he has eaten me, I shall eat him in return. This, O Bharata, forms the character as Mamsah [meaning flesh] of Mamsah [me he, or “me he” will eat for having eaten him]. The destroyer is always slain. After him the eater meets with the same fate.

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35)

“He who acts with hostility towards another becomes victim of similar deeds done by that other. Whatever acts one does in whatever bodies, he has to suffer the consequences thereof in those bodies.

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.36-37)

“Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness.

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39)

“Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty.”

(Mahabharata, Anu.116.40)



Bhagavata Purana:

“Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world.”

Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)

To Be Continued

http://www.thespiritualscientist.co...d-hinduism-adopt-vegetarianism-from-buddhism/





 

P.J.

Well-known member
Do the Vedic literature allow meat-eating? Continues

Do the Vedic literature allow meat-eating? Continues


Transcription by- Keshavgopal Das & Ambuj Gupta

Question- Are there references for eating meat in the Vedic literature? Is the adoption of vegetarianism within Hinduism a later feature caused by the influence of Buddhism? Does the Vedic literature directly recommend vegetarianism?

Answer- First question, are there references to eating meat in the Vedic literature. Yes, there are.
But these references are not recommendations. They are concessions.

Along with this answer I have pasted from various Vedic scriptures references that explicitly recommend vegetarianism. So there are references from Rig Veda, from Manu Samhita, from extensively from the Mahabharata and also from Srimad Bhagavatam; the Bhagavat Puran.

So these four literature are considered to be ones which have influenced modern day Hinduism to a large extent.

Rig Veda is considered by scholars to be oldest of all scriptures which is preserved even today in its letters.

Manu Samhita is widely recognized as law book for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is a veritable compendium of of traditional dharma.

And the Srimad Bhagavatam is considered to be the ripened fruit of the devotional essence of the Vedic literature.

So you will find that here there are so many references that, if by example Manu Samhita says man should never obtain food that is got by injury to other living beings. Once we understand the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of slaughtering and slaying other living beings, why should one eat meat at all. One should give it up entirely.

So there are multiple references here. He who permits the slaughter of animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he ho buy or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, he who eats it, must all be considered the slaves of the animals. There is no greater sin on that man who though not worshiping the God or ancestor seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of others, Manu Samhita 5.51-52.

Further Bhishma Pitamah specially Anushasan parva, when he is instructing Yudhisthir Maharaja in the Mahabharata extensively recommends vegetarian food. So you can have a look at these references yourself. But coming to the important point, these references do exist.

Some people who want to justify their meat eating habits may find out some references which also allow meat eating. If we look at those references practically all of them are in the context of Yagyam or sacrifice.

So in the verse which I read out in Manu Samhita also, it is said that if one is sacrificing for the God’s then and then alone meat is allowed. Killing animal is allowed and then the meat can under certain circumstances be consumed.

Why was this sort of statement given in the Vedic literature? The Vedic literature are not just offering spirituality in one form. The spiritual processes offered in the Vedic literature are not uniform but omniform.



The Vedic literature recognize that different people have different levels of adhikar. Adhikar means, capacity to practice spiritual life. And based on their individual capacities they can follow recommendations at different levels. That is why for those who are addicted to meat eating, meat eating is allowed under certain restricted conditions. So these statements in the scriptures are concessions, not recommendations.

What is the difference between a concession and a recommendation?

If a patient goes to a doctor, the doctor tells him you have diabetes. You take this medicine in morning and evening and you absolutely avoid all sugar. So among the two things the doctor had said the taking medicines is the recommendation. That’s what the doctor wants the patient to do. On the other part don’t take sugar. The patient said I can’t live without sugar. No, I can’t live without sugar. I must take sugar. Doctor is ok, you take sugar. Take one sweet once a week. Then the patient comes back and starts telling oh! The doctors has instructed me to take a sweet. Now that is not instruction. That is a not a recommendation, it is a concession. Concession means that what is not necessarily good for me but because I want it I am allowed to do it. Recommendation means I am told to do it.



So the Vedic literatures recommendation is be vegetarian but the concession is you can be non-vegetarian under certain circumstances.

What are those circumstances? They are if we perform yagya in which the animal is sacrificed and then after that the animal is offered to Kali or some other devi or devata and then that food is taken that meat is consumed. So this creates certain restrictions.

That only on the holy days related with the devi.

Only when the proper yagya or proper worship and sacrifice is happening at that time the animal can be sacrificed. So just as the doctor’s purpose is to restrict the eating of the sugar. He would prefer, he would recommend not taking sugar at all. But if the patient is not capable of following that instruction, doctor recommends that you take the medicines regularly and he allowed as a concession to take sugar occasionally.


Now if the patient comes back home and starts telling, my doctor told me to take sugar. That’s his instruction. All of you had make arrangements for giving me sugar. And not only that, he not only misrepresents, the doctor did not recommend, doctor gave a concession but he says he changes it not once a week but every day. Not every day, every day morning, after noon evening doctor instructing him to take a sugar. That is not at all true. So in such a situation the doctor may come and tell that nothing doing, sugar should not be taken at all. Sugar is very harmful. Sugar should not be taken at all. And strongly he rejects. He realizes that the concessions that he had given were misused. And then he dispenses away with the concessions entirely.


Now the acharyas in the Vedic tradition recognize Lord Buddha to be an avtar of the Lord, as he is mentioned in the Bhagavat Puran, as he is mentioned in Jaideva Goswami’s Geet Govinda and several others scriptures.

And historically speaking Buddhism also attracted a lot of followers. And then because of the influence of Buddhism when to the natural human moral conscience, the obvious reality of the violence that is involved in killing animals and eating them, even in non sacrificial contexts became obvious then even the Hindu leaders reformed themselves and then they started emphasizing vegetarianism much more strongly. So people who were getting attracted to Buddhism, they were told if you think Buddhism is good because there is vegetarianism in it.

Vegetarianism is there in Vedic literature also. So it is not that Hindus adopted vegetarianism because of their influence of Buddhism. The influence of Buddhism brought to fore front what was originally there in the Vedic literature but what had been side lined, what had been neglected. So yes, the development of Buddhism did lead to the increased emphasis on vegetarianism. But that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is not mentioned in the Vedic literature. It was as, you can see from all these references. But Buddhism did the service of getting back to the fore front in their Hindu tradition.

Now moving forward several of the acharyas starting from Shakaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, these were three great systematizes of Hinduism. In fact from the fifth century B.C to fifth century A.D, Buddhism practically predominated India, and to some extent Jainism also in some parts of India. But from the seventh century onwards when Shankaracharya appeared, there was a great revival of Hinduism. So because still substantially there were people who were Hindus and they were saying that the Vedic literature tell us to eat meat so therefore we have to eat meat.

Then the acharyas introduce some further modifications as this based also on the verse which I read out from Manu Samhita- That if at all you say that you have to sacrifice animals, make animals out of clay, make animals out of wheat flour. So if you have to sacrifice a goat, this is not exactly a invention of the acharyas. These references are there in the scriptures but they were brought to the fore front again.

Those who started saying that how can you say that meat should not be eaten because the Vedic literature say that in yagya animals have to be sacrificed. So then the acharyas showed references, that indicated that one need not kill living animals. One can just make replica of animals using clay or specially wheat flower.


Similarly in the Kali temple instead of offering Her blood many temples now offer hibiscus flowers. So hibiscus is red in color. Blood is red in color. And Goddess certainly pleased by offering of the hibiscus flower also. Actually the Goddess never wants any meat or blood. But because the worshipers want it, to keep them under regulation, the sacrifices were originally started.

Now in the original Vedic literature where are the animals cut and eaten? There are different kind of yagyas depending on the modes of the people who are involved.

So the highest level of yagyas are, there if at all animals is used, the animal is put to death using the power of the mantra and then he gets the new body which everybody else sees and he gets the human body or a celestial body and he continues onward getting a jump start, getting a rapid leap forward in the evolution through the Vedic species. But in some other sacrifices, yes because the sacrifices were involving people who wanted to eat meat, so when the animal would be killed, the meat would be eaten also. This was for those people who are in rajo guna and specially in tamo guna, in the modes of passion and especially ignorance. But even these sort of sacrifices were stopped by the acharyas who systematized and revived Hinduism.

Now at present the Hindu tradition is largely vegetarian. And all over the world people are recognizing the value of vegetarianism because of the substantial ecological problems created by trying to eat meat.

The Vedic tradition, the Hindu tradition, pioneers in this context. And rather than searching out obscure verses from some Vedic literature to justify ones meat eating. Let us recognize the Vedic tradition, acclaimed vegetarianism right from the beginning. And it was brought into the fore front by Buddhism and now it has become the torch bearer for the rest of the world where the vegetarian alternative is not just the alternative but it is the necessity for the survival of our planet and for the survival of humanity.


http://www.thespiritualscientist.co...d-hinduism-adopt-vegetarianism-from-buddhism/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks