Vegetarianism in the Vedas

[Guest guest]

Vegetarianism in the Vedas

 

Here is one Mantra from Rig-veda,

Brahmadvishe kravyaade ghorachakshase dveshah dhattam. (7-104-2).

"May we always dislike those, who hate the Vedas, eat meat, and have a

terrifying face".

Today we know that face shows the character of a person. If a person would

have a terrible character, like hating knowledge or good things (Dharma) and

killing animals for his own selfish nourishment, it would be visible on his

face very clearly. You would say, but there are many people, who eat meat,

but still are very handsome and good looking? Please be with them, you would

see their true face. You would see, how they really look. The outer face can

be made good-looking, with adding creams and many other things. But not the

inner face, I have many times see, how dirty it is.

Now, let us understand the mentality of the Great Vedic Seer. Vedism is a

culture for the community. It tells us about values, which make the

community cheerful and prosperous. Our community consists out of many

things, not only human, but also creatures. If a community wants to be

cheerful, it is needed that each understands the feelings of the next

person, each person respects the feelings of the next person, only then

people can live together, otherwise it even becomes difficult between two

people. Now, today we think that we are dominant on the creatures, we can

behave with them as we like, we don't remember that they are also a

manifestation of the same Supreme as we are. So, we don't respect their

feelings. But, I think we have to understand their value, their value for

the eco system and everything. Today, channels like The National Geographic

tell us much about it, how reef fishing is becoming dangerous for the

environment. Vedas give very much stress on the environment, so the seers

knew all these facts.

So, killing animals is not good for the environment and the eco system.

Meat is considered a Tamasic Food, and as food has a great influence on our

way of thinking or mind, so, meat eating makes our mind to think in a

tamasic or bad way. We start to behave like animals, cruel and more than

that, start to kill even humans. So, meat eating is not good for the mind.

Therefore Atharva-veda says, "kravyaad bhuutvaa vyadvari" (3-28-2), One

starts to go on the wrong path, after becoming a meet-eater.

"tamaamsi yatra gachchanti tat kravyaado ajigamam" (2-26-5), may the

meat-eaters go to that place, where darkness goes.

"daha kravyaadah" (5-29-11), O Agni! burn meat-eaters.

And there is much more in the Vedas, but it will take me time to find it.

And then, it is not at all good for health. Ask Doctors, they know how. I

have heard that in Europe most Highways have a signboard now,

 

Please

Stop

eating animals.

 

And in this way, westerners are coming back very fast to our religion.

Indians are still not understanding it, but let us pray for them that they

understand it.

Have you ever heard about a disease called "mad cow", if not, then look on

the internet and you would know what it is. What is it, the curse of God,

for eating too much meat. Thank god, people in the west are now stopping to

eat Go Mata.

Our Shastras say frequently, ahimsaa paramo dharmah, ahimsa (nonviolence) is

the greatest Dharma. This is a fundamental truth, on which the rest of the

religion is based.

According to Bhagavan Patanjali (the author of the Yoga System), it is the

first step for salvation or god-realization. According to him, it should be

unconditioned, i.e. not conditioned with time, locality or object. This

nonviolence is on three levels, mind, speech and body.

 

-------

Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih, Om

(Om Peace, Peace, Peace, Om)

° "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards

all! - The three Vedic commandments)

° ° my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna

° ° ° Like to read about Vedism? please visit:

http://www.geocities.com/vedism/ or

http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The following relating to Sacrificial killing in the Yajnas, was

taken from the discourses of Kanchi Paramacharya, ( from the

following link).

You may find it interesting. It also touches upon "soma".

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm

 

"IS SACRIFICIAL KILLING JUSTIFIED ?

 

"A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras,

the invoking of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The

mantras are chanted (orally) and the deity is meditated upon

(mentally). The most important material required for homa is the

havis offered in the sacrificial fire-- in this "work" the body is

involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and

body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together.

 

Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation.

While ghee by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to

purify other sacrificial materials - in fact this is obligatory. In a

number of sacrifices the vapa(fat or marrow) of animals is offered.

 

Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is

it both?

 

Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In

his compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made

with flour and offered in the fire. ("Pasu" does not necessarily mean

a cow. In Sanskrit any animal is called a "pasu". )

 

In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as

found expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of

the Vedas. The actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the

Purvamimamsa which is the karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose

of sacrifices is explained in the Uttaramimamsa, that is the

jnanakanda. What is this purposse or goal? It is the cleansing of the

consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to the

path of jnana.

 

The Brahmasutra says: "Asuddhamiti cen na sabdat". The performance of

sacrifices is based on scriptural authority and it is part of the

quest for Self realisation. So how can it be called an impure act?

How do we determine whether or not an object or an act is impure or

whether it is good or bad? We do so by judging it according to the

authority of of the sastras. Vyasa goes on to state in his

Brahmasutra that animal sacrifice is not sinful since the act is

permeated by the sound of the Vedas. What is pure or impure is to be

known by the authority provided by the Vedas or rather their sound

called Sabdapramana. If sacrifices were impure acts according to the

Vedas, they would not have accepted them as part of the Atmic quest.

Even if the sacrificial animal is made of flour (the substitute

according to Madhvacharya) it is imbued with life by the chanting of

the Vedic mantras. Would it not then be like a living animal and

would not offering it in a sacrifice be taken as an act of violence?

 

Tiruvalluvar says in his Tirukkural that not to kill an animal and

eat it is better than performing a thousand sacrifices in which the

oblation is consigned to the fire. You should not take this to mean

that the poet speaks ill of sacrifices.

 

What is in accordance or in pursuance of dharma must be practised

howsoever or whatsoever it be. Here questions of violence must be

disregarded. The Tirukkural says that it is better not to kill an

animal than perform a thousand sacrifices. From this statement it is

made out that Tiruvalluvar condemns sacrifices. According to Manu

himself conducting one asvamedha (horse sacrifice) is superior to

performing a thousand other sacrifices. At the same time, he declares

that higher than a thousand horse sacrifices is the fact of one

truth. If we say that one thing is better than another, the

implication is that both are good. If the performance of a sacrifice

were sinful, would it be claimed that one meritorious act is superior

to a thousand sinful deeds? You may state that fasting on one

Sivaratri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekadasis. But would you

say that the same is better than running a hundred butcheries? When

you remark that "this rite is better than that rite or another", it

means that the comparison is among two or more meritorious

observances.

 

In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or

non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah".

It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites.

 

Considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices and the

conduct of war.

 

If the ideal of non-violence were superior to the performance of

sacrifices, it would mean that "sacrifices are good but non-violence

is better". The performance of a thousand sacrifices must be spoken

of highly but the practice of non-violence is to be regarded as even

higher: It is in this sense that the Kural stanza concerning

sacrifices is to be interpreted. We must not also forget that it

occurs in the section on renunciation. What the poet want to convey

is that a sanyasin does better by abstaining from killing than a

householder does by conducting a thousand sacrifices. According to

the sastras also a sanyasin has no right to perform sacrifices.

 

There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later

when I deal with "Kalpa" (an Anga or limb of the Vedas)

aaand "Grihasthasrama" (the stage of the householder). What I wish to

state here is that animals are not killed in all sacrifices. There

are a number of yagnas in which only ghee (ajya) is offered in the

fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with ghee) is offered and in

some the cooked grains called "caru" or "purodasa", a kind of baked

cake. In agnihotri milk is poured into the fire; in aupasana unbroken

rice grains (aksata) are used; and in samidadhana the sticks of the

palasa (flame of the forest). In sacrifices in which the vapa of

animals is offered, only a tiny bit of the remains of the burnt

offering is partaken of - and of course in the form of prasada.

 

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three

types:pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are

seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the

first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from

the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that

animals are sacrificed.

 

"Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves

on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken

to the sacrificial altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To

tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of

animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna

performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For

asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted

by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned.

 

It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only

to satisfy their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the

deities was only a pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be

carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which

it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake of as

prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea

and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste. There may

be various reasons for you to attack the system of sacrifices but it

would be preposterous to do so on the score that Brahmins practised

deception by making them a pretext to eat meat.

 

Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the

laboratories as guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a

little hurt caused in the cause of a great ideal, the welfare of

mankind. As a matter of fact there is no hurt caused since the animal

sacrificed attains to an elevated state.

 

There is another falsehood spread these days, that Brahmins performed

the somayajnas only as a pretext to drink somarasa (the essence of

the soma plant). Those who propagate this lie add that drinking

somarasa is akin to imbibing liquor or wine. As a matter of fact

somarasa is not an intoxicating drink. There is a reference in the

Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with

somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "

arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage.

 

The principle on which the physiology of deities is based is superior

to that of humans. That apart, to say that the priests drank bottle

after bottle of somarasa or pot after pot is to betray gross

ignorance of the Vedic dharma. The soma plant is pounded and crushed

in a small mortar called "graha". There are rules with regard to the

quantity of essence to be offered to the gods. The small portion that

remains after the oblation has been made, "huta-sesa", which is drunk

drop by drop, does not add up to more than an ounce. No one has been

knocked out by such drinking. They say that somarasa is not very

palatable. .

 

The preposterous suggestion is made that somarasa was the coffee of

those times. There are Vedic mantras which speak about the joy

aroused by drinking it. This has been misinterpreted. While coffee is

injurious to the mind, somarasa cleanses it. It is absurd to equate

the two. The soma plant was available in plenty in ancient times. Now

it is becoming more and more scarce: this indeed is in keeping with

the decline of Vedic dharma. In recent years, the Raja of Kollengode

made it a point to supply the soma plant for the soma sacrifice

wherever it was held. "

 

Source : Hindu Dharma Copyright : Bharativya Vidya Bhavan

 

 

Kameshwaran

 

 

advaitin, "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna@v...>

wrote:

>

> Vegetarianism in the Vedas

> . Now, today we think that we are dominant on the creatures, we can

> >

> Please

> Stop

> eating animals.

>

>

[Guest guest]

My Sashtaanga PranAm to Parama Guru Swami Ji Maharaj.

 

Kameshvaran ji has quoted Hounorable and Most Respected Shri Parama Guru

Swamigal from Kanchi regarding animal sacrifice. I have personally a very

great regard to His Holiness, but here I would choose to differ with His

Holiness Parama Guru Ji in some context, taking Bhagavan Shri Adi

Shankaracharya's side. I pray to His Holiness, he would forgive me for my

standpoint, but I'm sure about myself, because I think that I'm taking the

standpoint of the Shruti and Adi Acharya. And if I have Acharya and Shruti

on my side, I don't have any problem in disagreeing with any body.

Parama Guru Swami Ji says,

 

"In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or

non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah".

It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites."

Source : Hindu Dharma Copyright : Bharativya Vidya Bhavan

 

There is a problem with this sort of interpretation. Bhagavan Shankaracharya

clearly writes in his commentary,

"bhikshAnimittamaTanAdinApi parapIDA syAdityata Aha-anyatra tIrthebhyaH."

"But if a person goes for the purpose of Bhiksha, even by that he would

cause pain to others, therefore (the Shruti) says, "except with regard to

Vedic rites'".

So, according to Bhagavan Shankaracharya the Vedic rite is not to kill

animals as it has been presented by ParamaGuruJi, but it is to ask for

Bhiksha, and doing that is not a sin.

 

Then, again Paramacharya Ji Swamigal writes:

 

"There is a reference in the

Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with

somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "

arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage."

 

Here, though I don't fully understand what Paramacharya Ji wants to say,

because of my limited knowledge of English, I understand that he wants to

say that Indra's intoxication etc. which is described in the Vedas, is an

"arthavaada." If this understanding is correct, than I again have an

objection and I would disagree with him.

First let me tell a bit about "arthavAda". Those stories which are told in

the Brahmana's (as there are no stories in the Samhitas), they usually don't

have much appropriate meaning, and therefore according to Purva Mimamsa

Philosophy they are called "arthavaada", and thus they are accepted as to be

a praise, but not having much meaning (in other way it is a sort of saying

in a good way "useless or meaningless"). That is very good about the

Brahmanas, etc. but I wouldn't really like to state the same about Indra, as

Bhagavan Yaska in his Nirukta, which is a limb of the Vedas or one among the

6 Vedangas, gives a different explanation to it, which is more

understandable than that of H.H. Paramacharya Swamigal Ji.

According to Yaska Bhagavan (2-16-3), this is a upamA (rUpaka, according to

Durgacharyas commentary), i.e. a symbolical statement. It is a symbol to a

different thing, which happens on a celestial (adhidaiva) or spiritual

(adhyaatma) level.

I think, this is more understandable, because simply saying that it is just

for the purpose of praising something and it doesn't mean much, I wouldn't

like to say that about the Vedas, and surely not if some of our Great Seers

state something differently, isn't it?

However, I'm again very sorry for my standpoint, but if any scholar has any

difficulty in accepting it, I would highly appreciate a further scholarly

discussion on the subject, for better understanding, as I have only joined

the list for the purpose that I may be able to interact with scholars and

would be able to understand the secrets of these great mystical Shastras in

a better way, for my own spiritual and intellectual progress.

 

I would also like to share an information with all of you, most of the Vedic

scriptures call Yajna by the name of "adhvara", and specially those Yajnas

related to Yajur Veda are called "Adhvara", and do you know what the meaning

of the word is (according to Bhagavan Yaska), "a deed containing no

violence". Isn't it interesting enough?

However, Alas! What a great religion, but rarely understood by scholars!

I would highly appreciate any scholar's comment on my understanding. And I

would feel very sorry if my above statement hurts anybodies feeling and I do

apologize for that.

I know children are always pardoned!

Loving Regards,

Siddhartha Krishna