Hindu Vegetarianism is a Vaisnava Concoction

I've been reading "The Eternal Companion" by Swami Prabavananda about his guru, Swami Brahmananda who was one of the two main Ramakrishna disciples (the other was Vivekananda) states that meat-eating is a vaisnava/buddhist concoction.

As many folks parade hinduism as being a religion of lacto-vegetarians, your thoughts???

 

I've scanned the Bhagavad Gita, and nowhere can I find that Krishna says one must not eat meat. He classifies foods under the three gunas - the modes of Nature, and says what the effect of their consumption will be.


The Vaishnava position seems to stem from a 'tit for tat' kind of understanding of karma. If one kills animals, or has them killed on one's behalf, one will have to return here as an animal and suffer a similar fate in a future existence. I consider this a myth at best, an absurdity at worst.

My opinion is that different diets suit different types of people with different types of actions to perform. So a man who does hard physical work might need the rajasic energy of meat and fish.
Swami Vivekenanda says somewhere that he thought the ordinary Indian peasant type had been definitely harmed by vegetarianism. They lacked, he thought, the rajasic qualities needed for material development. Veggie diet had made them too 'bland' and de-energized. He saw it as one of the causes of the deplorable state of Indian society in his time.

It's a question too of maintaining a healthy body - and so pure wholefoods are better than processed food - which I believe the Gita classifies as tamasic.

I read a book about ayurvedic medicine some time ago, and that takes a different view of the gunas and foods. It seems that in ayurveda, a balance has to be established in the body between these various gunas, and diet is used to that end, including fish - not sure about meat. But also, body types are classified accodring to the gunas - and what suits one type won't suit another as a diet. It seems to suggest that it's all very personal and specific to get exactly the right diet. Perhaps the body knows what it needs really, and it's a mistake to impose a diet on the basis of either a philosophical concept or even emotion about killing.

 

My husband cooks me meat of a young bull so I will bear him a son who will be a famous scholar.

From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad;

atha ya icchet putro me paNDito vigItaH samitiMgamaH zuzrUSitAM vAcaM bhASitA jAyeta sarvAn vedAn anubruvIta sarvam Ayur iyAd iti mAMsaudanaM pAcayitvA sarpiSmantam aznIyAtAm Izvarau janayita vA aukSNena vArSabheNa vA //18//[/i]
here is a translation taken from here.
" If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son."

 

If you eat meat, you increase the tamo guna in you which is bad for spiritual growth, you have to stay nonviolent, you have to stop inflicting pain and suffering on other beings such as yourself. when you learn to do that, you will understand, until then you won't.

If your life is only about yourself, then that life is really useless indeed. The vedas propose many ways of material advancement, but really the real 'truth' of the vedas exists in the knowledge of Sri Maha Vishnu at the end, the supreme purusha who makes his dwelling everywhere. To know Him, to understand Him, you need to make some sacrifices. It is said that Tamo Guna is like a big mountain between you and God, not easy to cross , but then the rajo guna is like a brick wall, the satva guna is like a white smoke between you and God, it is easy to walk through the white smoke than crossing the mountain, brickwall etc. If you cannot give up meat for God, then how can you give up anything else? it is not meerly a thought of giving up that counts, it is the action that is needed. One has to act in order to achieve his goals, not sit around and think about them all day.

 

In the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition meat is considered to be unofferable to Krishna, and, since Gaudiya Vaisnavas try not to take any food that is not first offered to Krishna and then taken as prasadam, the eating of meat is automatically precluded.

Srila Prabhupada's take was that in today's world a "slaughterhouse mentality" exists in which meat is an everyday commodity, eaten strictly to gratify the senses, rather than a food item that is reserved to be eaten rarely or only by those that really need it, as you suggested, Bill.

In a traditional sense, Prabhupada did mention that Sudras, or manual workers, being by nature in the tamasic mode will be naturally inclined to eating meat, especially of the processed and lowgrade varieties, and that Ksatriyas, or warriors and adminstrators, being more in the rajasic mode, will also be inclined to meat, though of a higher grade and slaughtered with appropriate acknowledgement that a life being taken to appease the taste of the consumers.

A person who is naturally of Brahminical or sattvic character, born into that caste, or who has develped the Brahminical qualities through spiritual sadhana and acquired knowledge will have much less of an inclination to eat flesh foods and will give them up if vegetarianism is part of the regimen of the spiritual sadhana that is prescribed by his/her guru.

Generally, the attitude of Vaisnavas is that meat eating, especially beef and the flesh of higher mammals, is unnecessary, cruel, and extremely sinful. Cruelty begets cruelty...if one is cruel to animals, even passively so, then one will eventually develop an attitude of callousness and cruelty toward human beings. As SP was fond of saying about many things, "This can be seen practically". Vegetarianism in itself won't give you spiritual life but it is a mindfully compassionate step towards it...and continued unrestricted meat eating is a definite roadblock in the development of higher consciousness.

I've been a lacto-vego for over 20 years and haven't missed meat a bit. Medical exams attest to my very good health and more than a few people have guessed my age at ten years younger than I am. On a personal level, it's a good idea...heart disease runs strong on both sides and colon cancer on one. My wife eats fish a couple of time a week because she feels that it helps with her physical weaknesses...totally cool, nobody's a fanatic in our home.

 

Oh yea this is true, meat cannot be offered as prasadham to God.

 

I don't like the fanaticism Ive seen in relation to this - esp. from ISKCON and ex-Iskcon people.
In the 80's I was in a band, and our bass player was an ex-devotee of one of the famous eleven, Tithapada, who was murdered horribly by a psychotic follower, after telling his disciples to take drugs. This person drank strong cofee, smoked cigarettes and took amphetamines (something I've never done). One evening when we were all a bit bored, he suggested, half-joking, that we should go out and 'smash up the shop of one of those bastard butchers'. Not exactly love to all living entities there. And more than a suggestion of hypocrisy.
Also, another ex-devotee one told me that he wouldn't let his children play with the children of meat-eaters, pronouncing this as though another speices were being talked about.
To me, this is another imbalance.

BTW- I see our own Jedi has 'demoted' meat from Rajas, where it surely belongs, to Tamas.
Another problem with insistence on total vegetarianism is that followers of other paths observe no such restrictions, and really, if diet is to be determined by scriptures, they'd be departing from their own path if they became veggies.
Anyway - I've read that great and illumined masters like Ramkrishna and Vivekananda both ate meat on occaision, what to speak of Jesus Christ.

Myself, I eat a mainly veggie diet supplemented with fish. I will though eat meat on occaision. I avoid it mainly because I don't need it, and I hate the mess cooking meat leaves one to wash up.

 

Manu-samhita, Buhler's translation

5.16 But the fish called PAThIna and that called Rohita may be eaten, if used for offerings to the gods or to the manes; (one may eat) likewise RAjIvas, SiMhatuNDas, and SaSalkas on all (occasions).

5.18 The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable; likewise those (domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels.

There is however the advice:

5.56 There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spiritous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

Just to show that this is not a rare reference from the VasiSTha Dharma-sUtra:

The treatise of Manu states: An animal may be killed only on the occasion of paying homage to ancestors, gods, or guests. (4.5)

He should, moreover, cook a big ox or a big male goat for a Brahmin or Ksatriya who comes to his house. In this way they show him hospitality (SB 3.4.1.2 cited at VDS 4.8)

 

Rama is frustrated. It is this frustrated face of Rama we see that night under the Banyan tree. A very human face.

The Ramayana shows us how frustrated Rama was by telling us what he did during the day the night of which we are discussing. After crossing the Ganga, Rama, whose misery comes out later in the evening, goes on a hunting spree with Lakshmana! He spreads death in the jungle.

Rama unleashes his fury on the animals of the jungle! The Ramayana does not tell us how many animals he killed. But it tells us that he killed four kinds of animals: varaha, rshya, prishata and maharuru. Varaha is the wild boar, rshya the white-footed antelope, prshata the spotted antelope, and maharuru yet another kind of deer.

Could it have been that he killed these for food? I do not think so. For one thing, Rama has announced earlier that he would live on fruits, roots and tubers all the fourteen years in the jungle. “Giving up meat, like a hermit, I shall live on roots, tubers and fruits all the fourteen years in an uninhabited jungle. [Chaturdasha hi varshani vatsyami vijane vane kandamoolaphalair-jeevan hitva munivad amisham – Ayo 20/29]. He specifically mentions here he shall avoid meat – hitva amisham.

The shloka that refers to their hunting [Ayo 52/102] also refers to their eating. The part that refers to their eating is rather ambiguous. It only says that the food they ate on that day after hunting was medhya – meaning clean or pure. Later, however, during his stay in Chitrakoota, we do see Rama giving meat lovingly to Sita. As they sat on the flat top of a hill, Rama offers Sita meat, pleasing her, and tells her “this is pure, this is delicious, this has been well-cooked in fire.” […nishasada giriprasthe sitam mamsena chhandayan; idam medhyam, idam swadu, nishtaptam idam agnina – Ayo 96/1-2]. Still later, on the day Sita is abducted by Ravana, we see Rama, after he had killed Maricha, killing another deer, a prishata, a spotted deer, and hurrying home with its meat. [Nihatya prshatam chanyam mamsam adaya raghavah tvaramano… Aranya 44/27]. Around this time, Sita, in her hermitage, tells Ravana to rest for a few moments – Rama would be coming back any moment, bringing lots of forest food, as well as meat from several rurus, mongooses, and wild boars, having killed these. [Agamishyati me bharta vanyam adaya pushkalam ruroon godhan varahanscha hatvadayamisham bahuh. Aranya 47/23]

However, I do not think it likely that the killing on that day was for meat.

For one thing, how many animals do you need for one day’s meal? You don’t need three kinds of deer for a day’s food for three people, in addition to at least one wild boar. And I do not think Sita could have cooked all these meats separately – she was not in a position to do so, even if she was in the mood to. So far as we know, she had neither the vessels required nor the spices and other requirements.

Under the circumstances, they could not have bothered too much about declicious food.

No, I do not think the animals were killed for food.

Could it have been that they killed these for fun – for mrigaya, which kings love, which is one of their favourite sports? It could not have been. It is not the ideal condition for mrigaya. They are not exactly on a holiday. They are on their own for the first time since the banishment. They have left a weeping Ayodhya and weeping parents behind [even if Lakshmana does not remember his wife Urmila]. There is uncertainty about the life of Dasharatha – who kept saying he would die. The people of Ayodhya were angry – they could have reacted violently to the recent incidents, especially after Rama left them on the banks of the Sarayu while they slept. Their own future course of action was not clear – fourteen years in the jungle with a beautiful woman like Sita with them would not be easy. They were certainly not in the mood for mrigaya.

And, in any case, mrigaya with Sita with them? No.

It is more likely they just killed the animals that came their way.

In anger. In fury. In frustration.

Was the killing cathartic? We do not know. Did it purge the brothers, give them some freedom from the burden of anger and frustration in their heart, even if momentary? We do not know.

What we do know is that Rama was still frustrated at the end of the day.

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/090.htm

 

Hedonistic Themes in the Ramayana


As narrated in the Valmiki Ramayana, after Rama's victorious vanquishing of Ravana and prior to Sita's banishment from the palace, Lord Rama and Sita enjoyed their reign in Ayodhya indulging in eating meat, drinking wine and being entertained by celestial nymphs (apsaras). Rama and Sita, who are worshipped by Hindus and simultaneously regarded as supreme figures to emulate, did not let Hindu ideals such as vegetarianism deter their quest for jubilant times in the kingdom.

I. Non-vegetarian Rama
II. Wine-drinking Sita


I. Non-vegetarian Rama

Rama's non-vegetarian inclinations are apparent early in the Valmiki Ramayana; in Ayodhyakanda sarga 20, he laments to his mom Kausalya about his imminent exile from the kingdom into the forest (due to his wicked co-mom Kaikeyi's plot) during which he would be abstaining from meat as is served at the palace:

"[Rama:] 'I shall live in the forest for fourteen years abstaining from animal food and living on tuberous roots and fruits like unto the ascetics. The king shall confer upon Bharata the heir-apparentship and shall banish me as an ascetic into the forest. And I shall live in that solitary forest for eight and six years, feasting on roots, and fruits and performing the duties of a hermit.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. I. p.246].

However, Rama resumes his meat-consumption (and alcohol-consumption) upon returning to Ayodhya after his coronation, as revealed in the next quote.


II. Wine-drinking Sita

After recovering his kidnapped wife Sita from Lanka, Rama's coronation is performed upon returning to Ayodhya. Both Rama and Sita spend their evenings enjoying wine as well as succulent well-cooked meats in the Asoka-grove. The following quote which captures this regal scene is from Uttarakanda sarga 52 (or sarga 42 in some editions) of Valmiki Ramayana:

"All the trees in the forest were filled with flowers. And the rocks there, covered with flowers falling down from trees, appeared like welkin beautified with stars. And Rama's Asoka forest was like unto Indra's Nandana and Kuvera's Chitraratha made by Brahma. Having entered the rich Asoka forest abounding in many seats and houses and creepers Rama sat on an excellent seat, covered with a beautiful coverlet and well constructed. Like unto Purandara with Sachi he took Sita by the hand, made her sit and drink the wine distilled in the province of Mira. And in no time the servants brought for him well-cooked meat and various fruits. Being inebriete the beautiful Apsaras, well-skilled in the art of singing and dancing, began to dance before Rama in the company of Kinnaris. The virtuous-souled Rama, the foremost of those who know how to please, satisfied those beautiful damsels adorned with various ornaments. And Sita sitting by him, he appeared like the effulgent Vasishtha in the company of Arundhati. Being greatly delighted the celestial-like Rama pleased every day Sita resembling a celestial damsel. Sita and Raghava (Rama) thus spent their days happily. And thus was spent the delightful winter giving all enjoyments. Enjoying various things the high-souled Rama and Sita spent ten thousand years. Once on a time, having performed all the religious ceremonies, in the fore part of the day, Rama, to spend the evening, entered the inner apartment. Sita, too, having performed all religious ceremonies, at first attended to the service of her mothers-in-law. Thereupon wearing a beautifully coloured cloth and being adorned with various ornaments Sita appeared before Rama like unto Sachi approaching the king of celestials in heaven. And beholding the auspicious signs of pregnancy in his spouse Rama attained to excessive delight." -- Ramayana 7:52. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. III. pp.1716-1717].

As narrated above, Lord Rama and Sita spent ten thousand years enjoying such joyous activities. Then one day, after Rama impregnated Sita (as illustrated above), rumors of Sita's sexual infidelity with her former captor Ravana were circulating among the populace of Ayodhya. So, as to avoid offending his subjects and to retain his reputation as a virtuous monarch, Rama banished his pregnant wife into the wilderness, although he knew the rumors were false; from that point on Rama and Sita would eventually meet their demise with the Ramayana ending ultimately as a tragedy, though the two do return to heaven as Lord Vishnu and his consort Laxmi.

http://india30.tripod.com/hedonistic.htm

 

The Veda (ZatapathabrAhmaNa 11.7.1.3) states that meat is the best food.

 

Well, Hinduism is not static and is in fact evolutionary. The later Vedas state that it is better for your health, if you don't eat meat. After all, they used to sacrifice animals to God before changing to fruits and other things.

 

OKay BBB, such fanaticism is evil and I guess it comes down to really what you prefer, but still its pretty hard not to admire the philosophy behind it, but again if we don't see any truth in it, then we don't have to follow it.

 

To molly,

I don't know where you get your quotes or knowledge about hinduism but everything you present here seems to be somehow twisted in translation or otherwise totally wrong. These are not what I have read and I have many books including ramayan. What you need is a guru, or you will just keep indulging in your own ignorance.

 

jedi, its hard to have communication with you for one, you are extremely locked into what you believe to be the truth because someone whom you believe to be the authority told you to believe it and not believe all others and two, even those vaisnava truths that you are locked into of Prabhupada or whatever, you misrepresent or don't understand as those of Iskcon or Prabhupada disciples themselves believe them and three, when a point is clearly made, you don't aknowledge it as part of the discussion... welcome to jedi's own private universe

my point and black bill's is that the esteemed vedanta tradition of ramakrishna and others believed all this vegetarianism to be a concoction and so we have clearly presented the guru lineage that you suggest we find

 

Misguided rather than evil I think.
In general, people in western culture eat too much meat - and often, not very high quality meat, like burgers and so on. I think it is mostly unecessary, and no doubt it threatens an epidemic of obesity, heart disease etc.

In terms of the morals of veggie vs. meat eating, I don't know how clear cut it is really. I used to think that it would be better if people didn't kill animals to eat, but as time has gone on, I just sort of accept that these are the facts of nature at this stage of earthly evolution. There are many other things in Nature which from an idealist perspective we might like to change too - the existence of disease, natural disasters etc, but the fact is we can only do so much, and largely, we have to adapt ourselves to it whilst we are here.

For some, a veggie diet is best. But I don't think it will work for everyone, and I don't see the day coming when all mankind will accept this. In other reilgions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, there are specific instructions about meat eating, how to kill it, what animals can be eaten etc. For Christians, in the Bible the old restrictions against pork and shellfish for instance, were said to be inapplicable, and they could eat whatever they wanted. So it could be argued that a Christian veggie is not really demonstrating full faith.

I think common sense has a role in all this. If one spends most of the time in meditation and only light phyisical work, if one is a sedentary office worker etc meat may do harm. If you spend all day working on a farm in a British winter, it may be very good.

Also, on the moral front - some say that plants too feel distress, and even scream when pulled up. So either way, there is destruction in order to eat.
And never forget, Adolph Hitler was a somewhat fanatical vegetarian, whilst Sri Ramakrishna, the Dali Lama and others ate some meat.

 

When I said Guru, I meant authentic gurus from a line coming down from either Adi Shankaracharya, Madvacharya or Ramanujacharya. All these other gurus are well-other gurus. Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument about how I am saying other gurus are not authentic but then this is true in my own private universe .

Also, you didn't get my point when I said all your translations seem to be twisted because where you get your translations matter, because translations are often wrong- take for example a christian who wants to convert people to hinduism in India, he can take the purusha sukta and turn it entirely into something that would say that following bible is the vedanta. I say this because i have seen it happen, sometimes sanskrit verses are so elusive that one can easily be misguided - therefore some one who knows sanskrit very well, - a sanskrit pundit is needed for us to translate properly.

 

every translation is just that, the finding of the translator for what he thinks are the most appropriate words... even without translating texts, folks seem to bet rather tedious about what are the imports so to say a translation is "twisted" is actually the subjective truth of objective truths

 

Translation by Ramanuja is always the same, Also the translation from Adi Shankaracharya and Madvacharya are also authentic, I was not talking about the self proclaimed gurus... never mind , I should have never said what I said.

 

ok