'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
or www.mantra.com/jai
Forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
[ Subject: Re:Humans as Carnivores
[ From: Vrndavan Parker
[ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006
Vijay Ashar wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2006:
Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being
smarter, more empathetic and more foresighted than your
carnivore brothers. If any of you are part of any group
with a common purpose, please circulate this revelation
amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type
of food (aahaara) we eat determines the three-fold
qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas).
vijay
- - - - -
Food for Thought on Whether Human Beings Should be Carnivores
Washington, May 28, 2006 - Writer William Saleton has
given readers food for thought on the practice of eating
meat. He mentioned the ability of a person to munch away
on a burger and then pet the household dog. Psychiatrists
call this behavior "cognitive dissonance." Saleton
questions whether we really have the right to ignore the
habit of eating meat in view of all the evidence that
shows animals may be our fellow creatures. He explains,
"The case for eating meat is like the case for other
traditions: It's natural, it's necessary, and there's
nothing wrong with it. But sometimes, we're mistaken. We
used to think we were the only creatures that could
manipulate grammar, make sophisticated plans or recognize
names out of context. In the past month, we've discovered
the same skills in birds and dolphins. In recent years,
we've learned that crows fashion leaves and metal into
tools. Pigeons deceive each other. Rats run mazes in
their dreams. Dolphins teach their young to use sponges
as protection. Chimps can pick locks. Parrots can work
with numbers. Dogs can learn words from context. We
thought animals weren't smart enough to deserve
protection. It turns out we weren't smart enough to
realize they do."
Scientists seem to agree that at one time meat was
necessary in the diet for human beings to survive but
that was thousands of years ago. Now we know that we can
get all the nutrition we need to sustain a healthy body
from a vegetarian diet. So Saleton questions why we keep
eating meat. He adds, "If we were just beasts, that would
end the discussion. But we're not. Evolution didn't stop
with our lusts; it started there. Food gave us
brainpower. Technology lifted us above survival and gave
us time to think. We began to understand the operation of
living things, even ourselves. We saw what we were, and
we saw what we could be. That's the paradox of humanity:
Our aspirations transcend our nature, but they have to
respect it. To become what we must become, we have to
work with what we are."
In the very same way present society now condemns animal
sacrifice, human sacrifice, slavery and the subjugation
of women. Saleton points out that at one time this was
the norm and that 300 years from now, when our
descendants look back at slaughterhouses the way we look
back at slavery, they won't remember the benefits to us
but they'll want to know whether we saw the moral calling
of our age.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601709.html
End of forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Besides being an expression of compassion
for animals, vegetarianism is followed for
ecological and health rationales
REASONS
In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters --
Hindus and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision
to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are
five major motivations for such a decision:
1. The Dharmic Law Reason
Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first
duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
2. The Karmic Consequences Reason
All of our actions, including our choice of food,
have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the
cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even
indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the
future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
3. The Spiritual Reason
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what
we ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and
experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher
consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl
or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal
foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger,
jealousy, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of
death, all of which are locked into the the flesh of the
butchered creatures. For these reasons, vegetarians live
in higher consciousness and meat-eaters abide in lower
consciousness.
4. The Health Reason
Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is
easier to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients
and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body.
Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major
diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus
live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have
fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the
doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills.
Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer,
more refined and skin more beautiful.
5. The Ecological Reason
Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss
of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the
single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that
we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a
dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary
ecology as the decision not to eat meat.
HISTORY
The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
later the British. With them came the desire to be
'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a
meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
"That vegetarianism has always been widespread in
India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was
observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by
Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth
century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic
copies of the scriptures.
"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the
flesh of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI
declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds
of meat,' for such eating involves killing and and leads
to Karmic bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic
literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja
Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-
killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth
[Shrimad Bhagvatam 10.1.4].'"
SCRIPTURE
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 birth.
MAHABHARAT 115.47
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8
The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV
262.47
The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by
his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its
taste; the killer does Hinsa 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 of these are to be
considered meat-eaters. MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same
in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --
he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in
himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not
himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the
highest path. BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28
Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best
Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41
What is the good way? It is the path that reflects
on how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324
All that lives will press palms together in
prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and
savor meat. TIRUKURAL 260
What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting
life, for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL
312, 321
Goodness is never one with the minds of these two:
one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a
creature's flesh. TIRUKURAL 253
Copyright (C) 1993, Himalayan Academy, All Rights
Reserved. The information contained in this news report
may not be republished in any form without the prior
written authority of Himalayan Academy.
This is an authorized reproduction.
Jai Maharaj
Born in a Hindu family in Bharat, and a vegetarian since birth
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
harmony
the beginning.
as usual, america, the great civilizing influence, leads the way.
<use...@mantra.commEXvs98y or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20060615Y06280XR09Bd5mEXvs98y10@GU9ud...
Leif Erikson
> 'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
>
> Forwarded message from
typical Jay Jyotishithead Stevens bucket of bullshit.
Humans evolved as meat eating omnivores. That is not in dispute.
me
> 'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
>
> Forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
>
> [ Subject: Re:Humans as Carnivores
> [ From: Vrndavan Parker
> [ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006
>
> Vijay Ashar wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2006:
>
> Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being
> smarter, more empathetic and more foresighted than your
> carnivore brothers. If any of you are part of any group
> with a common purpose, please circulate this revelation
> amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
> the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type
> of food (aahaara) we eat determines the three-fold
> qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas).
Which of these qualities did Ram's mind have?
Rama liked hunting deer. He slaugthered the captured deer and sliced the
meat, then dried it.
http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Indonesian/ramayana/rama16e.htm
me
> 'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
>
> Forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
>
> [ Subject: Re:Humans as Carnivores
> [ From: Vrndavan Parker
> [ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006
>
> Vijay Ashar wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2006:
>
> Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being
> smarter, more empathetic and more foresighted than your
> carnivore brothers. If any of you are part of any group
> with a common purpose, please circulate this revelation
> amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
> the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type
> of food (aahaara) we eat determines the three-fold
> qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas).
What will consuming this fruit do to your mind?
http://www.jameshudnall.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=758
Here's some good news that vegetarians can really sink their teeth into:
Researchers have developed genetically engineered fruit trees that bear
real meat!
Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using
gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But when
you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.
"We take the genes from cattle that produce key proteins and splice them
into the reproductive cells of grapefruit trees," he says. "When the seeds
mature into trees, instead of producing ordinary citrus fruit, the pulp
contains meat. You get the flavor, texture -- even the smell."
Those who've sampled the meat agree it tastes like the real thing.
"I was a bit skeptical at first when I sank my teeth into a hamburger
after they told me it grew on a tree," says Londoner Mark Basker, 41, who
participated in a consumer taste-test. "But it was juicy and delicious --
nothing leafy about it at all."
> Scientists seem to agree that at one time meat was
> necessary in the diet for human beings to survive but
> that was thousands of years ago. Now we know that we can
> get all the nutrition we need to sustain a healthy body
> from a vegetarian diet. So Saleton questions why we keep
> eating meat.
To reduce the number of animals killed? Many more animals are killed in
large scale production of vegetarian food than in the production of a
nutritionally equivalent quantity of *pasture fed* beef.
> In the very same way present society now condemns animal
> sacrifice, human sacrifice, slavery and the subjugation
> of women. Saleton points out that at one time this was
> the norm and that 300 years from now, when our
> descendants look back at slaughterhouses the way we look
> back at slavery, they won't remember the benefits to us
> but they'll want to know whether we saw the moral calling
> of our age.
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601709.html
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
... the same reasons why Christians don't eat meat?
If you respond with "most Christians do eat meat", the counter-response
would be "so do most Hindus".
chico chupacabra
> 'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
>
> Forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
>
> [ Subject: Re:Humans as Carnivores
> [ From: Vrndavan Parker
> [ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006
>
> Vijay Ashar wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2006:
>
> Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being
> smarter, more empathetic and more foresighted than your
> carnivore brothers. If any of you are part of any group
> with a common purpose, please circulate this revelation
> amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
> the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type
> of food (aahaara) we eat determines the three-fold
> qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas).
The message of BG-17 isn't about "expressly" about food. Food *is* mentioned
by way of illustration, but Krishna isn't teaching that food equals
holiness. That's a mistake repeatedly made by uninformed, ignorant
vegetarian zealots who can't get to the gist of the teaching because they
lack both comprehension and moderation.
vernon
ten thousand years.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <t2Fkg.240782$5Z.162497@dukeread02>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> it's not the beginning of the end of meat-eating by humans; it's the end of
> the beginning.
> as usual, america, the great civilizing influence, leads the way.
>
>
>
> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) posted:
or www.mantra.com/jai
REASONS
3. The Spiritual Reason
4. The Health Reason
5. The Ecological Reason
HISTORY
SCRIPTURE
or www.mantra.com/jai
By Stephen Knapp
http://www.stephen-knapp.com
Many times there seems to be some confusion or lack of
clarity on whether the Vedic path condones or condemns
the eating of meat. Often times I hear Indians and
followers of the Vedic path explain that meat eating is
all right, that the Vedic shastras do not condemn it. Of
course, in this day and age meat eating includes and
supports the whole meat industry, which is the systematic
slaughter of thousands of animals on a daily basis. But
if we actually research the Vedic texts we will find that
there are numerous references in the various portions of
the Vedic literature which explain in no uncertain terms
the karmic dangers of meat-eating and unnecessary animal
slaughter. These indicate that meat eating should be
given up for one's spiritual and even material progress.
This means that the Vedic conclusions that some people
present for meat-eating are not accurate, and that they
have never studied their own religious books very
thoroughly. This is something that is important to
understand, so let us take a look.
VEDIC REFERENCES AGAINST MEAT-EATING AND ANIMAL SLAUGHTER
To start with, the Manu-samhita clearly and logically
recommends that, "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)
However, it is not simply the person who eats the meat
that becomes implicated by eating the dead animal, but
also those who assist in the process. "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)
As we get further into the Manu-samhita, there are
warnings that become increasingly more serious. For
example, "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)
In this way, the only time to carry out the need to kill
animals for consumption is when there is an emergency
such as when there simply is nothing else to eat.
Otherwise, when there are plenty of grains, vegetables,
fruits, etc., to eat, it is only mankind's lust and
selfish desires that motivate one to kill other beings to
satisfy one's tongue by tasting their blood and flesh, or
to fatten one's wallet by making money from participating
in the distribution or the cooking of meat. Such violent
actions create opposite reactions. For this reason the
warnings are given, "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)
'Nonetheless, there are also benefits that are mentioned
that a person can attain simply by not eating the bodies
of other creatures: "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)
'Also, "By not killing any living being, one becomes fit
for salvation." (Manu-samhita 6.60)
'The earlier texts, such as the Rig-veda (10.87.16), also
proclaim the need to give up the eating of slaughtered
animals. "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."
'"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's
creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."
(Yajur Veda 12.32.90)
'There are also references in the Mahabharat that
forewarn the activity of eating flesh: "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." (Mahabharat, 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." (Mahabharat, Anu.115.40) All of these people
will also incur the same karmic reactions for their
participation in killing, distributing or eating the
flesh of animals, as explained next.
'"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."
(Mahabharat, Anu.115.33)
'"Those who are ignorant of real dharm 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." (Bhagavat Puraan 11.5.14)
The following verses are from the Tirukural:
How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of
an animal to fatten his own flesh?
Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless,
nor can compassion be found in the hearts of those who
eat meat.
He who feasts on a creature's flesh is like he who wields
a weapon. Goodness is never one with the minds of these
two.
If you ask, "What is kindness and what is unkindness?" It
is not-killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never
virtuous.
Life is perpetuated by not eating meat. The jaws of Hell
close on those who do.
If the world did not purchase and consume meat, no one
would slaughter and offer meat for sale.
When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of
another creature, he will abstain from eating it.
Insightful souls who have abandoned the passion to hurt
others will not feed on flesh that life has abandoned.
Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in
sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any
living creature.
All life will press palms together in prayerful adoration
of those who refuse to slaughter or savor meat.
-From these verses there should be no doubt that the
Vedic shastra recommends that such selfish meat-eating
must be given up if one has any concern for other living
beings, or one's own future existence, or for attaining
any spiritual merit.
'In Bhagavad-gita, however, we also find similar verses
on what is recommended for human consumption. Lord Krshn
says, "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a
flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." (Bg.9.26) This
means that not only should one be a vegetarian and eat
only fruits, water, grains, vegetables, etc., but such
items should be made as an offering to God with love. The
reason is that, "The devotees of the Lord are released
from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is
offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for
personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin." (Bg.3.13)
So what is offered are only those things that Krshn
accepts. That becomes prasada, or remnants of foods
offered to the Lord.
'As further elaborated in Bhagavad-gita by Lord Shri
Krshn: "O son of Kunti, all that you do, all that you
eat, all that you offer and give away, as well as all
austerities that you may perform, should be done as an
offering unto Me. In this way you will be freed from all
reactions to good and evil deeds, and by this principle
of renunciation you will be liberated and come to Me."
(Bg.9.27)
'Herein we can see that the process of preparing and
eating food is also a part of the Vedic system for making
spiritual advancement. As the Vedic literature explains,
what we eat is an important factor in the process of
purifying ourselves and remaining free from accumulating
bad karm. It actually is not so difficult to be
vegetarian, and it gives one a much higher taste in
eating and in one's spiritual realizations. The level of
our consciousness is also determined not only by what we
think and do, but also by the vibrational level of what
we put into our bodies as food. The more natural and
peaceful the food, the more healthy and peaceful will be
our consciousness. If it is further blessed and offered
to the Lord, then it becomes especially powerful and
spiritualized. This vibration goes into our own bodies
and is assimilated by our consciousness to assist us in
our spiritual upliftment. However, if we eat foods that
are the remnants of animals that were petrified with fear
before being slaughtered, or were tortured during the
slaughter process, that fear, aggression and suffering
will also become a part of our own consciousness, which
is reflected back on our own life and the people with
whom we come in contact. And people wonder why there is
not more peace in the world.
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER LORD RAAM ATE MEAT IN THE
RAMAYAAN
''Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayan indicates
that Lord Raam ate meat, especially while He was in exile
in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki's
Ramayan that establishes that Lord Raam, Lakshman or Sita
ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems
to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating
meat. The evidence for this is as follows: ''The verse
that comes in question in this regard in the Valmiki
Ramayan, Sundarakand, Skand 36, Shloke 41, says: "Na
mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam
suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam."
''The literal translation of this verse is: "Shri Raam
does not take meat or honey. He partakes everyday of wild
fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully sanctioned (for an
ascetic) in the evening."
''Faulty English translations have put it as something
like this: Hanuman to Sita, "When you were away, Shri
Raam did not even take deer meat." This incorrectly
implies that Raam normally may have ate meat but did not
do so while Sita was away from Him.
''Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte is a verb
that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the
Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you
say Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says "Na
mamsam Raghava bhunkte", it gives a complete negative
connotation, meaning that Lord Raam abhorred meat-eating.
On the other hand, if the words were "Na mamsam Raghavo
khadate", it could then mean that Raghava may have
engaged in meat eating before, but had stopped it at this
point. However, this is not what is said, but is where
some English translations present a similar confusion, or
are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by
analyzing the correct view of the proper translation, it
indicates clearly that the Valmiki Ramayan shows how Lord
Raam not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it.
THE PRINCIPLE OF BEING MERCIFUL
'Meat-eating and animal slaughter also disrupts and
disregards the doctrine of ahinsa, or non-violence. It is
not possible to kill animals for the pleasure of the
tongue without violence. The Padma Puraan (1.31.27)
simply says that, "Ahinsa is the highest duty."
Therefore, one must honestly ask themselves if they
intend to truly follow the Vedic tenets or not, at least
if they call themselves a Hindu, follower of Vedanta, or
a Sanatana-dharmist. If they are, then they must adopt
the ways of ahinsa.
'Ahinsa is more directly explained in Patanjali's Yoga
Sutras (2.30) wherein it is said: "Having no ill feeling
for any living being, in all manners possible and for all
times, is called ahinsa, and it should be the desired
goal of all seekers."
'It is also said in the Buddhist scripture, the
Mahaparinirvana Sutra, "The eating of meat extinguishes
the seed of great compassion."
'One of the principles that one must follow in the
endeavor to be free from acquiring bad karm and for
spiritual advancement is being merciful, based on ahinsa.
Mercy means more than just being nice. Mercy means being
kind to all living entities, not just to humans, but also
to animals, birds, insects, etc. This is because the
living entity, depending on its consciousness, can take a
material body in any one of the 8,400,000 species of
life. Therefore, to develop and maintain the quality of
mercy, one must follow the principle of no meat eating.
This includes no eating of meat, fish, eggs, or insects.
In this way, those who are serious about a spiritual path
remain free from so many unnecessary karmic reactions.
Karm means that for every action there is an opposite and
equal reaction. Killing an animal to eat is certainly an
act of violence that creates a negative reaction in the
atmosphere which returns as more violence. This comes
back to us as reversals in life which we must endure in
the future.
'It is bluntly stated that meat eating is actually the
grossest form of spiritual ignorance. To kill other
living entities for the pleasure of the tongue is a cruel
and selfish activity that requires one to be almost
completely blind to the spiritual reality of the living
being, that within the body is a soul like you, a part
and parcel of the Supreme Soul. It also causes one to
remain hard-hearted and less sensitive to the concern for
the wellbeing and feelings of others.
'As previously explained, according to the law of karm,
whatever pain we cause for others we will have to suffer
in the future. Therefore, a wise man does not even want
to harm an insect if possible, what to speak of
slaughtering an animal in order to taste its flesh and
blood. As explained in the Manu-samhita, the sinful
reaction for animal slaughter is received by six kinds of
participants, which include, (1) the killer of the
animal, (2) one who advocates or advertises meat-eating,
(3) one who transports the meat, (4) one who handles or
packages the meat, (5) one who prepares or cooks the
meat, and (6) one who eats it.
The sinful reaction shared by these six participants in
animal slaughter is serious. In fact, the Bible compares
the killing of cows to murdering a man: "He that killeth
an ox is as if he slew a man." (Isaiah 66.3) It is also
explained in the Shri Caitanya-caritamrita (Adi-lila,
Chapter 17, verse 166): "Cow killers are condemned to rot
in hellish life for as many thousands of years as there
are hairs on the body of the cow," which is also
referenced in the Manu-samhita. So an intelligent person
will try to avoid this fate.
'Some readers may say, however, that the sacrifices in
the early Vedic literature prescribed animal slaughter,
so for that reason it is all right to kill animals. But
such activities in this day and age are refuted by Shri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Caitanya-caritamrita (Adi-
lila, Chapter 17, verses 159-165) which He explains to
the Chand Kazi who was a Muslim:
'"The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be
killed. Therefore any Hindu, whoever he may be, does not
indulge in cow killing. In the Vedas and Puranas there
are injunctions declaring that if one can revive a living
being, he can kill it for experimental purposes [in the
ritual]. Therefore the great sages sometimes killed old
animals, and by chanting Vedic hymns they again brought
them to life for protection. The killing and rejuvenation
of such old and invalid animals was not truly killing but
an act of great benefit. Formerly there were great
powerful brahmanas who could make such experiments using
Vedic hymns, but now, because of Kali-yuga, brahmanas are
not so powerful. Therefore the killing of cows and bulls
for rejuvenation is forbidden. 'In this age of Kali, five
acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in sacrifice,
the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the
[renounced] order of sannyasa, the offering of oblations
of flesh to the forefathers, and a man's begetting
children in his brother's wife.' Since you Mohammedans
[and others] cannot bring killed animals back to life,
you are responsible for killing them. Therefore you are
going to hell; there is no way for your deliverance."
'This quotation makes it perfectly clear how anyone who
participates in killing other living beings is
responsible for such acts which cause one to attain a
hellish future, or at the least, causes stifling of their
spiritual progress. We mentioned the karmic reactions for
killing the cow, but there are karmic results that one
acquires from killing other entities as well, which is to
suffer a similar pain or die in a similar way. Whatever
you do unto others will later return to you, either in
this life or in a future life. For every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction. That is the law of karm.
'We can now begin to understand how dark the future is
for someone who owns or manages something like a
hamburger or fried chicken stand. Not only is he
responsible for the animals that are killed, cooked, and
then sold by his business, but he is also responsible for
those he hires to help with it, and those who buy and eat
the dead animals. We can also begin to get an idea of the
dark collective karm of the population of a country whose
food habits are centered around the meat industry. The
violence that is generated by such a society certainly
cannot help but create adverse affects in the world.
THE BENEFIT FROM COWS
'The cow and bull are the prime targets of the meat
industry. However, cows and bulls are very important to
human civilization. Until the recent invention of the
tractor, the bull was used for helping to cultivate
fields for producing food, and the cow has always
supplied milk. A moderate supply of milk in our diet
provides the proper nutrients for developing a good brain
for understanding spiritual topics. Some sadhus in India
do not eat, but take only milk. From milk one can make
many other foods that are used in thousands of recipes
that we all appreciate, such as cheese or curd, yogurt,
kefir, butter, ghee, and so on. (However, this is not to
approve of the cruel and questionable practices of the
dairy industry as found in western countries.) This means
that, according to the Vedas, the cow is one of our
mothers and the bull is like a father for the benefit
they have done for society. To do outright harm to such
creatures is considered extremely serious. 'I have heard
Western people criticize India for not slaughtering its
cows, and talk about how there would be no more starving
children if they would just eat the cows. That is not the
cure. I have traveled all over India and have seen hungry
people there as well as in American cities, which is more
able to hide such problems. Homeless and hungry people
are found in every country. For another thing, cows are
one of India's greatest resources. They produce food,
fuel and power. Bullocks do as much as two-thirds of the
work on the average farm. They help plow the fields, hall
produce, and turn the presses. For India to convert to
machinery to do these tasks, especially in villages,
would cost as much as 20 to 30 billion dollars. For a
country like India, that is out of the question and a
waste of time and money.
'The cows also supply up to 800 tons of manure each year
for fuel. Cow dung gives a slow even heat, good for
cooking. Using coal for cooking would cost 1.5 billion
dollars a year. And besides, believe it or not, cow dung
kills bacteria and is antiseptic. And keeping cows is
cheap since they eat things like wheat stubble, husks,
and rice straw, which people cannot use.
'So why raise cattle for meat consumption when it takes
seven times more acreage for a pound of beef than a pound
of milk? Only four to sixteen pounds of flesh food is
produced for every hundred pounds of food eaten by
cattle. Ten to twenty tons of nutritive vegetable food
can be produced from the same amount of land that can
produce only one ton of beef. In one year, you can get
much more protein from a cow in the form of milk, cheese,
etc., than in the several years it takes for a cow to
mature enough to produce meat. To produce one pound of
wheat takes 25 gallons of water, whereas one pound of
beef requires 2500 gallons. And water is not always a
plentiful resource in countries like India. Obviously,
using agricultural resources for meat production is
nothing but wasteful.
'Furthermore, if we are so concerned about the starving
people in the world and the environment we live in, then
let us consider the fact that 60 million more people in
the world could be fed if Americans reduced their meat
consumption by only 10%. Plus, thousands of acres of
rainforest are lost every day in various countries, and
it is said that 50% of that is directly linked to raising
cattle for meat production. And though 76% of Americans
consider themselves concerned about the environment, only
2.8% are vegetarians (at the time of this writing). Many
Americans may say they love animals, but they still eat
them on a regular basis. Obviously, they need to raise
their consciousness about this. In any case, there are
many books on the market that present this type of
environmental information much more thoroughly.
''For those of you who would like to learn more about
what a vegetarian diet can do for you and how to cook
vegetarian meals easily, there are plenty of books
available to help you get started. Or check here on my
website for additional information and resources to get
started.
[This article available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com ]
More at:
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vegetarianism_recommended_in_Vedic_scripture.htm
REASONS
3. The Spiritual Reason
4. The Health Reason
5. The Ecological Reason
HISTORY
SCRIPTURE
Jai Maharaj
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
Leif Erikson
> A great plus for the U.S. is:
>
> http://www.pcrm.org
No. pcrm is an extremist fringe advocacy group. No
science to be found at that site.
Leif Erikson
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Most Hindus *DO* eat meat.
chico chupacabra
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Liar. First, some information from an article about a proposed law in India
to ban beef:
Many Hindus, who keep cows
as milch and draught animals and use bullock power in
agriculture, sell them once their economic life is
exhausted.
India has a sixth of the world's cows and 57 percent
of the world's buffaloes. Apart from slaughtering
millions of cows and buffaloes for domestic
consumption, India also exports over US$200 million
worth of meat, mainly beef....
Some of the states have registered an angry protest
against the proposed bill. For instance, the deputy
chief minister of north Meghalaya says, "A particular
diet may be poison to one community, but food for
another, as in the case of hill people in the
northeast whose main diet is beef." Neighboring
Mizoram state's chief minister argues, "If a bill
banning cow slaughter is passed, it could set the ball
rolling for efforts to ban the slaughter of pigs. But
both beef and pork are part of the food habits of the
people."
Kerala agriculture minister K R Gowri, herself a
Hindu, has termed the proposed bill "detrimental to
the interests of Kerala". In Kerala, beef accounts for
an estimated 40 percent of all meat consumed. Some 80
percent of Kerala's people regularly eat beef. They
include 72 Hindu communities, besides Muslim,
Christian and indigenous people....
There is yet another economic angle to cow slaughter.
Beef in India costs less than half the price of lamb
or chicken. It is the preferred source of first-class
protein for the poor, who constitute a majority of
India's population. The absence of beef will raise the
food bill for the underprivileged.
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, SURVEYS OF BUTCHERS IN DIFFERENT
STATES SHOW THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL BEEF IS CONSUMED
BY NON-MUSLIMS, LARGELY HINDUS. A HIGHER PROPORTION OF
THE SELLERS OF CATTLE ARE HINDUS.
Abstinence from beef-eating is largely a caste or
class question among Hindus. The low castes prefer
beef to other meat for reasons of taste and habit too.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Asia/India/india_atimes_2.html
Second, from a UCLA social sciences website about India and its neighbors:
Though no country in the world is as strongly associated with vegetarianism
as India, a number of recent studies have purported to establish that by
far the greater majority of Indians are non-vegetarians. The history of
vegetarianism in India begins not with the Aryans, as is commonly believed
by Hindus, but in the aftermath of the introduction of Buddhism and Jainism
in the sixth century BCE. Though orthodox Hindus are shocked to hear it,
the early Aryans were almost certainly beef-eaters.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Cuisine/vegetar.html
Next is a column in THE HINDU in 2001 addressing calls by extremists to ban
a book that details the history of beef consumption in India. The author of
the column, CR Reddy, wrote about his personal experiences with respect to
beef. While beef wasn't allowed in his home and he assumed no Hindu would
eat beef, a stayover in a hostel quickly disabused his error. He learned
that beef was consumed "by a large proportion" of non-vegetarian Hindus.
Reddy then gave some data a study that was included in another article in
another publication:
Ignorance is usually accompanied by intolerance and recently we have had
plenty of both on beef consumption in India. An article by Harish Damodaran
(Business Line, September 4) presented Central Government statistics which
stated that the meat India produces most is beef (1.44 million tonnes in
2000); the second is buffalo meat (1.42 million tonnes) and only third, is
mutton and lamb (0.7 million tonnes). Beef and buffalo meat together
account for as much as 60 per cent of domestic meat production. Fish is in
a different category altogether with annual production at 5.8 million
tonnes a year. With some rough, but reasonable, calculations Damodaran
showed THAT THE AMOUNT OF PROTEIN INDIANS GET, ON AVERAGE, FROM ALL FORMS
OF MEAT IS ROUGHLY THE SAME AS FROM PULSES. This is unusual for a
supposedly largely vegetarian society, most of whose [non-vegetarian]
citizens are not supposed to eat beef.
The per capita consumption of beef/buffalo in India is 2.8 kg, about half
that of fish, but more than twice the average intake of mutton, pork and
poultry - indirect evidence that beef consumption must be quite common
among meat-eaters of all religions.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/16/stories/13160467.htm
Western navel-gazing slackers typically embrace Eastern religions out of
some counter-culture motivation; such people tend to be charlatans with a
slothful agenda that has no real basis in those religions. Native Hindus
and Buddhists eat meat. It's only fundamentalist zealots who command others
not to eat meat. You can be a good Hindu or Buddhist and still eat meat.
Zealotry and fundamentalism don't make you a good Hindu or Buddhist (or
anything else), they only make you an ignorant, bad person.
chico chupacabra
> Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture
Wrong.
> By Stephen Knapp
> http://www.stephen-knapp.com
>
> Many times there seems to be some confusion or lack of
> clarity on whether the Vedic path condones or condemns
> the eating of meat. Often times I hear Indians and
> followers of the Vedic path explain that meat eating is
> all right, that the Vedic shastras do not condemn it.
They don't condemn meat consumption.
> Of course, in this day and age meat eating includes and
> supports the whole meat industry,
Just as it always has. Tyson Chicken is no different than some shepherd was
in ancient times. The only difference is the efficiency and the scale of
operation. That's all.
> which is the systematic
> slaughter of thousands of animals on a daily basis. But
> if we actually research the Vedic texts we will find that
> there are numerous references in the various portions of
> the Vedic literature which explain in no uncertain terms
> the karmic dangers of meat-eating and unnecessary animal
> slaughter.
IOW, IF YOU NITPICK AND VIEW ALL SCRIPTURE IN LIGHT OF THOSE NITPICKED
REFERENCES RATHER THAN INTERPRETING THOSE REFERENCES IN LIGHT OF THE REST
OF SCRIPTURE. That's no different than the nitwits who take passages from
Buddhist texts which say that monks shouldn't eat meat (though there are
exceptions to that "rule") and stretch that to include everybody; those
passages are for a small group, not a firm rule for everyone.
<snip rest of zealotry and fundamentalism... liberate yourself from this
tyrannical yoke>
me
> Jay Stevens wrote:
>
>> Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture
>
> Wrong.
>
>> By Stephen Knapp
>> http://www.stephen-knapp.com
>>
>> Of course, in this day and age meat eating includes and
>> supports the whole meat industry,
>
> Just as it always has. Tyson Chicken is no different than some shepherd
> was in ancient times. The only difference is the efficiency and the scale
> of operation. That's all.
Not the only difference. Raising chicken for slaughter takes more lives, per
unit quantity of meat, than raising goats for slaughter.
dh
>it's not the beginning of the end of meat-eating by humans
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
dh
>Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>> 'HUMANS AS CARNIVORES'
>>
>> Forwarded message from Vrndavan Parker
>>
>> [ Subject: Re:Humans as Carnivores
>> [ From: Vrndavan Parker
>> [ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006
>>
>> Vijay Ashar wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2006:
>>
>> Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being
>> smarter, more empathetic and more foresighted than your
>> carnivore brothers. If any of you are part of any group
>> with a common purpose, please circulate this revelation
>> amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
>> the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type
>> of food (aahaara) we eat determines the three-fold
>> qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas).
>
>What will consuming this fruit do to your mind?
>
>http://www.jameshudnall.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=758
"Vegetarians have been complaining for years that despite
their moral convictions against consuming meat, they still
crave the flavor of a good steak once in a while. Now they
can have their cake and eat it too."
They don't have the cattle though. Eating grass raised beef
contributes to fewer deaths than grain based products *plus*
it provides decent lives for cattle. Trees won't of course.
Leif Erikson
> it provides lives for cattle.
Not praiseworthy.
Dr. Homilete
for food and Laksamana gathered fruits. Sita prepared the food and also
collected flowers for religious ceremonies.
Rama liked hunting deer. He slaugthered the captured deer and sliced the
meat, then dried it. Sita always looked after the meat that was being
dried. But a flock of crows smelled the meat and snatched it until it
was completely gone.
One day, Rama did not go hunting because he wanted to know what kind of
animal stole their meat. Finally he found out that the crows did it.
From a hiding place Rama shot those crows with his arrows. One by one
those stealing birds were wounded by Rama's arrows and fell to the
ground. From then on, no one stole their meat anymore.
Dutch
This is bullshit, Rama could never kill crows with arrows, they would laugh
at him. He should have fired Sita and got a more diligent protector of the
meat.