Regualtive Principles

[vamsidhar]

Hare Krishna,

Some of the new devotees are asking some questions regarding the regulative principles like how come Lord Balaram was taking intoxication and like Bhima taking meat, Is there any explanation for these?

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

Balaraama was God, not man, so rules were not for Him, rules r for us people. Eating meat is permitted if it is properly sacrificed on proper days and hours. Kr,sna Himself used to go hunting to bring animals for sacrifice - and eating, this is written in Shrimad-bhagawatam.

[vamsidhar]

Haribol,

I admit that he was supreme and hence rules cant bind him but these are not sounding convincing to them.

But could you give me details where krishna has gone for hunting and sacrificing those animals.

[riih.qarojamahoamaan]

 

Haribol,

 

I admit that he was supreme and hence rules cant bind him but these are not sounding convincing to them.

But could you give me details where krishna has gone for hunting and sacrificing those animals.

OOOM GOWINDA DAAMODARA MAADhAWA!

A knife can never cut itself. Do they believe that Baalaraama is God, or not? If he was not God, then he had to pay for his karma. But if he is God, how can he be bound by his karma? Here lies the meaning of animal sacrifice: when meat is properly sacrificed (which is practically never the case in this era), we are not bound by sin for eating it, because God who is superior to rules has granted it to us. A human ruler can afford exceptions for his own laws, then why not God?

If they r not convinced that God is not bound by rules, still we r not gods, we r people, so we should obey rules which r for improvement of our lives. As for Kr,sna hunting, you can look up in Shriimad-Bhagavatam, it is mentioned that Kr,sna went hunting together with Arjuna, there He met Satyabhamaa. Also, when Kr,sna was living in Dwaraka with His 16000 wifes, Naarada came to visit Him, while Kr,sna has as many bodies as his wifes and he was living in 16000 palaces. In each palace he was doing some activity. At some palaces he was absent, he was out hunting to bring animals to sacrifice.

Anyway, animal sacrifice was always an important element of Hindu culture, until Buddhists put limitations to it. In fact the reason is overpopulation of India; when a human population is too big, it is not possible to feed on meat, that would mean havoc to natural environment. But it is also important, as stated in Mahaabharata and elsewhere, that a person eating un-sacrificed meat is not human, but a rak,sasa. The same is stated in all old traditions, of Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Jews: meat must come from properly sacrificed animals, or it not human's food, it is rak,sasaas' food.

Now, do you think that scriptures some times contain exaggerations and made-up stories? could be, you see even scriptures have been written and transmitted by people of many generations... and people are people, liable to do tricks.

But i do believe in God's laws, because i see their effect, and i believe that God is superior to His law, because He can grant pardon. It is also a Jewish and Christian belief that it is only God who has power to forgive sins; how can He forgive sins? just because He is superior to them. The world is a big school class; God is the teacher; now, the teacher wants you to always obey the rules, but still when he sees that you like the lesson, you like the teacher, you do what you can to be a good student, then the teacher likes you, so he may indeed forgive wrong things you do because of your weakness, without any malicious motive. The teacher sets up the class rules, then indeed he may allow exceptions.

You can always feel in your life if you r bound by bad karma or a curse, and if you r free from evil influences. So you may feel what is the right way for you.

Sorry if i talked too much. This is all i understand about it and dared hope it may help you.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Sorry if i talked too much. This is all i understand about it and dared hope it may help you.

 

Good to read your words, merciful Prabhu!! I'm suprised to read such a sincere (without tongue in cheek) reply from you

 

What you say is very good and certainly is sufficient. I hope I may add a few thoughts to the discussion, however.

 

I've heard it said that the Vaishnavas are not vegetarians. Rather, they are Prasada-tarians. They do not avoid meat for health or moral reasons (though, to be sure, there are plenty of health and moral reasons to avoid taking meat), but rather because Krishna has not asked us to offer meat to Him. He says, "If you offer me a leaf, a flower, a fruit or some water with love and devotion, I will accept it".

 

In vedic literature we find that hunting is indeed a pastime of the Ksatriya class. It is part of their dharma. Bhima is a ksatriya, so hunting is acceptable. In this context, I sometimes think of the Native Americans in North America for whom hunting was an almost religious experience. Offerings were made to the dead animal, thanks were given, and nothing was wasted.

 

Today, we may find self-styled ksatriyas, but can they compare in purity and energy to the ksatriyas from Mahabharata? I think not. Srila Prabhupada wanted us all to be Brahmanas--peaceful, devoted servitors of the Lord, engaged in contemplation of and distribution of the glories of the Lord.

 

That said, let's examine the term itself, "regulative principles." Note that Srila Prabhupada did not say "commandments". While all who are trying to follow the path of Devotion must try to follow these principles: no meat-eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex, and no gambling, it is clear from any number of sources that the primary consideration is our sincerity in performing our service (seva) and spiritual discipline (sadhana). How well we are following or not following is not for others (except, perhaps our senior God-siblings and Gurudev) to judge or comment on except to express concern for our well-being. Failing to follow the priciples ought not to be a source of shame or guilt. Rather, by firmly holding the feet of Guru-Gauranga in our hearts, all our annarthas (stumbling-blocks) will gradually fall away as if by magic.

 

In fact, in my Gurudeva's sangha, I heard some talk: when giving Hari-Nama initiation, Gurudev is not mentioning the four regulative principles the way Srila Prabhupad did at most initiations. Does that mean we are not expected to follow them? I believe somebody put the question to Gurudev. I don't recall his exact reply, but it was along the lines of: of course, we must follow the principles.

 

What I take from this is: the four regulative priciples are not religious or spiritual priciples per se. Rather, they are rules of civilized living. Before we can make much progress in spiritual life, we must at least begin to become civilized and regulated.

 

Of course, as good Prabhu says: Krishna is the Divine Autocrat. He and His expansions can do as they will without concern for social conventions. Let us remember what the emphasis is. It is not rules and regulations. It is Love of God.

[vamsidhar]

Haribol,

What will happen to those people who will eat this sacrificed meat, where do they go,to hell or depeding upon their status to heavenly planets?

Secondly where did Bhima go after he left this planet since he ate meat?

[Nrsinghadev]

 

I've heard it said that the Vaishnavas are not vegetarians. Rather, they are Prasada-tarians. They do not avoid meat for health or moral reasons (though, to be sure, there are plenty of health and moral reasons to avoid taking meat)

 

Haribol prabhu, I've heard this too. However how can we reconcile the "not avoiding meat for moral reasons" in view with the 26 good qualities of a Vaisnava, because when we view these qualities doesn't it become clear that a Vaisnava could never partake in the eating of meat or else he would cease to be a true Vaisnava?

 

I also found an interesting text on hunting:

 

Hunting

 

by Hrdayananda das Goswami

 

The hunting of animals deeply violates one of the most grave Vedic moral principles: ahimsa, not harming the innocent. Lord Krishna mentions ahimsa four times in the Bhagavad-gita [10.5, 13.8, 16.2, 17.4].

 

At 13.8, Krishna declares that ahimsa, together with other qualities, is knowledge and that everything else is simply ignorance. Thus himsa, harming the innocent, is ignorance. At 18.25, Krishna states that work undertaken without considering the resultant himsa, or harm to the innocent, is work in the mode of darkness. Krishna also states at 18.27 that a worker in passion is himsatmaka, which Prabhupada translates, "always envious."

 

At 16.2, Lord Krishna states that ahimsa is one of the godly qualities to which Arjuna is born. And at 17.4, the Lord says that ahimsa is a necessary component of bodily austerity. The Bhagavatam similarly praises the moral quality of ahimsa:

 

1.18.22 declares that ahimsa is the very nature of a pure soul. 3.28.4 enjoins that one should practice ahimsa. 7.11.8 teaches that ahimsa, and other qualities, are paro dharmah, the highest religious principle.

Significantly, 11.17.21 insists that ahimsa is sarva-varnika, for all varnas. And at 11.19.33 Krishna Himself teaches ahimsa.

Similarly, the Mahabharata, 1.11.12, declares that ahimsa is the supreme dharma for all living things.

Srila Prabhupada often taught that ahimsa especially means that one must not kill animals. For example, in his purport to the Bhagavad-gita 16.2, he writes,

 

"Ahimsa means not arresting the progressive life of any living entity. One should not think that since the spirit spark is never killed even after the killing of the body there is no harm in killing animals for sense gratification. People are now addicted to eating animals, in spite of having an ample supply of grains, fruits and milk. There is no necessity for animal killing. This injunction is for everyone. [emphasis mine] When there is no alternative, one may kill an animal, but it should be offered in sacrifice. At any rate, when there is an ample food supply for humanity, persons who are desiring to make advancement in spiritual realization should not commit violence to animals. Real ahimsa means not checking anyone's progressive life. The animals are also making progress in their evolutionary life by transmigrating from one category of animal life to another. If a particular animal is killed, then his progress is checked...So their progress should not be checked simply to satisfy one's palate. This is called ahimsa."

 

Similarly, in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 17.4, he states,

 

"There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahimsa was propagated not only in India but also outside the country."

 

Yet despite these numerous and heavy scriptural statements enjoining ahimsa and forbidding himsa, we find that Vedic kings often hunted. Prabhupada taught that ksatriyas, warrior kings responsible to defend the people, were allowed to hunt in order to sharpen their skill with weapons. However, as Prabhupada points out in his purport to the Bhagavatam 4.22.13, even such hunting was not auspcious. Indeed it was still considered a sin. Prabhupada writes:

 

"Kings are ... sometimes employed to kill animals in hunting because they have to practice the killing art, otherwise it is very difficult for them to fight their enemies. Such things are not auspicious. Four kinds of sinful activities-associating with woman for illicit sex, eating meat, intoxication and gambling-are allowed for the kshatriyas. For political reasons, sometimes they have to take to these sinful activities..."

 

Recall that the Bhagavatam [11.17.21] directly states that ahimsa is sarva-varnika, to be practiced by all the social orders, including ksatriyas. Indeed the Bhagavatam shows that even kings are not spared the sinful reactions of killing animals. Thus at 4.25.7-8, the great Narada says to King Barhisman:

"O Prajapati! O King! See the animals, living things that you cruelly killed by the thousands in sacrifice.

"These animals are waiting for you, remembering your butchery. When you have departed this world, they will slice you up with iron horns, for you have enraged them."

 

Similarly, the Bhagavatam declares at 5.26.24 that even Ksatriyas who take pleasure in hunting go to the hell known as Pranarodha. Prabhupada comments on this verse as follows:

 

"Men of the higher classes (the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas) should cultivate knowledge of Brahman, and they should also give the sudras a chance to come to that platform. If instead they indulge in hunting, they are punished as described in this verse. Not only are they pierced with arrows by the agents of Yamaraja, but they are also put into the ocean of pus, urine and stool described in the previous verse."

 

How do we understand this paradox? On the one hand, Vedic scriptures could not be more clear in their teaching of ahimsa, not harming the innocent, and their condemnation of himsa, harming the innocent. On the other hand it seems that a special concession is given to warriors to hunt. However this concession is problematic for several reasons:

1. Shastra teaches that even kings are punished for killing animals.
   
2. The Bhagavatam states that all social orders, including warriors, must practice ahimsa.
   
3. Vedic history teaches the powerful lesson that many of the greatest Vedic kings suffered tragic fates while hunting. Exalted kings such as Dasaratha, Pandu and Pariksit also encountered disaster while hunting. And the stepbrother of Dhruva, Uttama, was murdered on a hunting expedition. There can be no mistake that such historical lessons discourage hunting.

It is fair to conclude that Vedic culture strikes a balance here between the ideal and the real. The ideal is clearly ahimsa. The "real" however is that throughout recorded history all over the world, warriors hunt. And throughout history we find that warriors do not in fact strictly limit their hunting to the minimum necessary to hone their essential skills as protectors of humanity. Thus we find the following moral strategy in place:

1. The ideal is enjoined.
   
2. That which violates the ideal is prohibited.
   
3. A concession is made to those who simply can not or will not follow the ideal.
   
4. Those who accept these concessions are accepted within society, however...
   
5. The dangers and repercussions of accepting this concession are clearly indicated.

Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

If we gfocus, we do not eat meat for one specific reason, our spiritual master told us that in order to confirm our relationship with him, via initiation, four regulative principles must be followed, along with acceptance of the positive sadhana bhakti process of hearing and chanting.

 

As far as other disciples of other spiritual masters go, this is of absolutely zero consequence. If we remember the story of mgrari the hunter, Narada Muni gave him a specific order of initiation, do not trap your prey, rather kill it as swiftly as possibel, and the positive sadhana practice he was given was to worship tulasi devi. Mgrari became an exempliary pure devotee, so much so that Agatsya Muni was astounded at his progress.

 

So, we follow the regulations and the positive sadhana process as given by our initiating spiritual master. Other spiritual masters may not prescribe the same regulations because of time and place, but all have the same program, give up some bad stuff and accept some suddha sattwa stuff as replacement, and your life will be sublime. Jesus blessed fish, and to eat that fish was prasadam, because these animals were life giving and necessary to keep the body alive. Prabhupada is in this age where meat is much more hard to come by, so wasteful, so treacherous (as far as slaughterhouse meat goes), not to mention so horribly unhealthful.

 

Hunting may be quite aCCEPTABLE if you live on the north pole or in the desert. We may see a time real soon where pond scum and earth worms are the only food available.

 

But, to answer, we do it in reciprocation of the acceptance by guru of us as disciple, and this is the only reason.

 

harekrsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

"The four regulative principles" is a term invented by Prabhupada. The closest

classical equivalent in yogic culture is "yamas and niyamas" or restraints and observances. Regulating would mean a type of restraint.

 

He was training students to be brahmanas living in ashramas. So that is why they were not allowed to drink and hunt.

 

However in some monastic traditions in India, the householders and even some sannyasins are allowed to drink. However they have guidelines and restraints, such as they are not allowed to drink alone. Also if anyone has the tendency to drink to excess they are not allowed to drink at all.

 

Other restrictions are they may only drink beverages made of natural ingredients such as honey mead [varuni] and not hard liquor. The stated purpose is for brethren to meet together in harmony and think of noble and uplifting thoughts together in a brainstorming mode how to improve the world.

 

In the Puranas it is mentioned that people were drinking in Vedic culture. For example, in the Garuda Purana p. 297 [i.96.30] it says that those who have food grains in stock lasting for more than three years can perform the Soma sacrifice and drink the Soma juice.

 

However in the same text there are also restrictions [Garuda Purana I.95.21

"A spouse addicted to wine...can be forsaken..."] and severe sanctions not to go overboard.

 

Vis-a-vis hunting, the same text delineates the duties of ksatriyas [Garuda Purana I.96.27 "The special duties of a ksatriya are the administration of a kingdom and the protection of the people."] So it appears that Lord Sri Krsna

and Lord Balarama were playing the roles of ksatriyas, if I am not mistaken.

So I believe that hunting was part of the social conventions allowed for that caste, again under controlled and special circumstances.

 

Lastly if I am not mistaken I believe by drinking to excess was the way in which the Pandavas left their bodies, i.e. they got drunk and quarreled and then fini. And Krsna how He left His body is He was shot accidentally by a hunter. So it appears that even by Their pastimes they were showing that

it is risky to engage in drinking and hunting, because of karmic repercussions.

Of course They are not subject to karma, but as a pastime to show that this

is something to be careful of: drinking and hunting and the ksatriya lifestyle.

[Nrsinghadev]

 

Anyway, animal sacrifice was always an important element of Hindu culture, until Buddhists put limitations to it.

 

Haribol,

 

I have to disagree with this statement. The Lord Himself descended as Lord Buddha to put a full stop, not limitations, to animal killing in the name of the Vedas. That the Lord Himself came to establish this immediately makes it a fact that the animal killing that was going on at that time was completely bogus and had nothing to do with the Vedic culture whatsoever. It also establishes that meat-eating by sacrifice was never a widespread and common practice in the Vedic culture, but rather something practiced by a select few. Only when due to the deluding effects of Kali Yuga the people at large became infatuated with meat-eating on a large scale did it falsely appear to be a commonplace practice in the Vedic culture. Therefore, out of compassion for the poor animals, the Lord came to rectify this situation Personally. By denouncing the Vedas completely and establishing the principle of ahimsa He fooled the atheists into abandoning their sinful activities and start taking up pious activities.

 

From Lankavatara-sutra we find Buddha saying: "To avoid terror to living beings, let the disciple refrain from eating meat ... the food of the wise is that which is consumed by the "sadhus" [holy men]; it does not consist of meat. ... There may be some foolish people in the future who will say that I permitted meat-eating and that I partook of meat myself, but ... meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit meat-eating in any form, in any manner and in any place; it is unconditionally prohibited for all."

 

 

Hare Krishna!