Why be Vegetarian ? After All Plants Also Have Life ?

[Guest guest]

Shree Hari

Ram Ram

 

Thank you for bringing this point in the forefront. A similar

question was asked in the past and great information was shared.

 

Yes ! Vegeterianism is important and essential for those on the

spiritual path. Detailed answered are provided in the links below -

 

Particularly read the following links -

 

Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture

By Stephen Knapp (Shri Srinanandanji)

/message/627

 

Vegeterianism supported even in Bible - by Stephen Knapp

/message/626

 

Vegeterianism - Scientific Evidence

/message/632

 

Please search gita talk group by entering " Vegeterianism " in the

search window for additional discussions.

 

Ram Ram

 

 

--

Shree Hari,

 

Hari OM to everyone. I have a question today. Could somebody please

answer the following question?

 

A friend of mine asked me that why are you vegetarian. I told him

that I don't believe in killing animal and eating them.

 

He replied me that even plants and trees have a JEEVA (SOUL) in them

but you would still eat them. I told him that but I am not killing an

animal or anybody.

 

I couldn't answer him properly. So could somebody please help me

understand that what a difference between being a vegetarian is (but

the plants have the JEEVA too).

 

Please help me with this issue. I know we have an answer of this

question in Shrimad Bhagvad Gita but can not find it.

 

Thank you

 

Ram Ram

Kaushal Patel

 

 

FROM THE MODERATOR

 

The following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk discussions.

 

1. Purpose of the group is to help Sadhaks clarify their doubts

related to Gita shlokas. For responses to be posted, they must further

clarify the understanding of Gitaji.

2. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or other scriptures to

substantiate the response

3. Please limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc.

4. Kindly make your responses concise and to the point. (Up to twenty

line maximum, if possible).

5. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.

6. Please do not include links to other sites or other organizations

7. Please do not include your personal information such as phone

number, address etc.

8. Kindly do not address the response to a particular individual,

since the message is going to the entire group.

9. Due to a large readership, not all responses will be posted.

10. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if content is

unclear or not appropriate for distribution to the group.

11. Please respond taking into consideration novices, youth,

westerners, non-secterian audience. Please limit the use on only

sanskrit words, and provide the english word with sanskrit bracketed

wherever possible.

 

MODERATOR

Ram Ram

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

Jai Shri Ramji,

Vegetarianism is " non-voilence " or ahimsa, it is " satvik " .

Well, many persons say that plants also have life, so why not kill

animals & eat them.

When we eat fruits , vegetables etc, then we are hurting a living

organism to very little extent as plants have only two sense organs,

so they feel lesser pain than animals.

For instance, when your hairs or nails are cut then u do not have any

pain , so is the case of eating fruits & vegetables.

However, when u kill an animal, then you can yourself see the animal

in pain, crying & shouting in distress and helplessness.

In fact I have seen that many non-vegetarians do not ever watch the

slaughtering of animals, because if they were to see this act, they

would not be able to eat it anymore.

 

Many intelligent non-veg people says that if this is the explanation,

then will u consider it correct to kill a blind or deaf person as he

also have less sense organs???

The answer to this is that a blind or a deaf & dumb person though

physically can't see or hear respectively, but as they are human

beings- their level of growth and senses allow them to psychologically

see or hear.

The physical sense organs are of importance but the psychic organs are

more imp. Therefore, when u kill an animal it cries & shouts while a

plant does not.

Again, since the plants have life , we should cut or pluck as minimum

as possible (i.e. to fulfill only our genuine needs).

This will also be helpful for our earth's ecology & also our

spirituality- as it is said that " jaisa khaogey ann vaisa hoga mann " -

means your mind will be in accordance to the food you eat.

 

Dr. Amit Prakash Jain

---

 

Kabeer Das says

Hindi:Bakari paati khat hai, taakii khineenche khaal;jo jan bakari khaat hain

taaki kaun havaal

English:Goat that eats leaves is stripped of her skin, what should happen to

those eating goat?

 

As per Bhagwat Gita, 'sva bhaav' (independent nature) is altered by interaction,

learning, work and consumption. The 'bhaav' is dependent nature and thus, poses

limitation to sva bhaav. If interaction is by prem (love), the product carries

sat gun and svabhaav is united (bhakti) and improved. If it is by material

nature, product is with raj guna and it does not improve the svabhaav but

provides satisfaction temporarily. And if the relationship is of enemy, the

product will never be able to satisfy, and consumers will only increase

business. Sat guna satisfies more with less consumption, Raj guna satisfies

less with more consumption; and Tam guna does not satisfy at all, and

consumption rises exponentially.

 

regards

K G Misra

---

Hari Om,

Plants do have soul (Jeeva). Human superficial senses cannot realise

the killing of plants. ONLY after science developed or knowing from

hindu scripts, we come to know that there is jeeva in plants. As long

as one can see physically through eyes that there is suffering in a

killing, then it has to be avoided. To the extent GOD has given brain

and heart to feel and recognize the endured suffering. A lion killing

a deer, no one can file a criminal case, as it has only 5 senses. Man

has 6th sense to understand things around him and can feel that a

animal suffers when being slaughtered. A man can know that he is being

attacked or killed. Killing a human is known in our sastras as " Brahma

Hati " . One raises above normal man, when he thinks killing animals is sin.

 

In Srimath Bagavath, Bharatha yogiswar (who was born as a deer due to

attachment in previous birth) used to eat only dry grass or leaves

where there were no ants or insects to avoid harming insects and

plants. Human birth is Dullabom (Rare and Precious) therefore one

must use there discrimination at all times in everything thing

including food habits. How to live a divine life, is to be known from

scripts.

B.Sathyanarayan

 

 

 

, " sadhak_insight "

<sadhak_insight wrote:

>

> Shree Hari

> Ram Ram

>

> Thank you for bringing this point in the forefront. A similar

> question was asked in the past and great information was shared.

>

> Yes ! Vegeterianism is important and essential for those on the

> spiritual path. Detailed answered are provided in the links below -

>

> Particularly read the following links -

>

> Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture

> By Stephen Knapp (Shri Srinanandanji)

> /message/627

>

> Vegeterianism supported even in Bible - by Stephen Knapp

> /message/626

>

> Vegeterianism - Scientific Evidence

> /message/632

>

> Please search gita talk group by entering " Vegeterianism " in the

> search window for additional discussions.

>

> Ram Ram

>

>

> --

> Shree Hari,

>

> Hari OM to everyone. I have a question today. Could somebody please

> answer the following question?

>

> A friend of mine asked me that why are you vegetarian. I told him

> that I don't believe in killing animal and eating them.

>

> He replied me that even plants and trees have a JEEVA (SOUL) in them

> but you would still eat them. I told him that but I am not killing an

> animal or anybody.

>

> I couldn't answer him properly. So could somebody please help me

> understand that what a difference between being a vegetarian is (but

> the plants have the JEEVA too).

>

> Please help me with this issue. I know we have an answer of this

> question in Shrimad Bhagvad Gita but can not find it.

>

> Thank you

>

> Ram Ram

> Kaushal Patel

>

>

> FROM THE MODERATOR

>

> The following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk discussions.

>

> 1. Purpose of the group is to help Sadhaks clarify their doubts

> related to Gita shlokas. For responses to be posted, they must further

> clarify the understanding of Gitaji.

> 2. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or other scriptures to

> substantiate the response

> 3. Please limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc.

> 4. Kindly make your responses concise and to the point. (Up to twenty

> line maximum, if possible).

> 5. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.

> 6. Please do not include links to other sites or other organizations

> 7. Please do not include your personal information such as phone

> number, address etc.

> 8. Kindly do not address the response to a particular individual,

> since the message is going to the entire group.

> 9. Due to a large readership, not all responses will be posted.

> 10. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if content is

> unclear or not appropriate for distribution to the group.

> 11. Please respond taking into consideration novices, youth,

> westerners, non-secterian audience. Please limit the use on only

> sanskrit words, and provide the english word with sanskrit bracketed

> wherever possible.

>

> MODERATOR

> Ram Ram

>

[Guest guest]

Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture

By Stephen Knapp

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.

 

LORD KRISHNA'S INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT TO EAT IN BHAGAVAD-GITA

Many people question what Lord Krishna says, or if He says anything at all, about whether to be vegetarian or not. Actually, He provides some important insights. Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita: "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, food should be first offered in sacrifice, or ritual, but what ritual is this? He explains quite clearly that all food, as well as anything else, should first be offered to Him. "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it. 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.9.26-28)

Herein it is clear that food should be first prepared for offering the Lord, but with love. You can often see this in temples wherein the food is cooked with the intention of preparing it with love and then offering it before the Deities of Krishna with love. Thereafter, the devotees take the remnants and distribute amongst them as offered food. This becomes prasadam, or the spiritually surcharged food that is the mercy of the Lord, and which purifies our consciousness by honoring it through the process of respectfully eating it.

Furthermore, what is meant to be offered to the Lord is outlined as a leaf (most vegetables consist of leafy substances), flowers or fruits (which consist of grains, nuts, and fruits and juices), and water. Thus, no meat is mentioned. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is that food that is acquired through cruelty is in the mode of tamas, or darkness and ignorance, or in the mode of rajas, passion, which causes pain and distress to both the eater and the eaten. This is completely counterproductive to our own well-being, both in the present and in our future, and certainly causes pain and suffering to others. So, how can this be beneficial to anyone's spiritual, mental, emotional, and subtle development? As Lord Krishna explains:

"Even food of which all partake is of three kinds, according to the three modes of material nature. The same is true of sacrifices, austerities and charity. Listen, and I shall tell you of the distinctions of these. Foods in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such nourishing foods are sweet, juicy, fattening and palatable. Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, pungent, dry, and hot, are liked by people in the mode of passion. Such foods cause pain, distress, and disease. Food cooked more than three hours before being eaten, which is tasteless, stale, putrid, decomposed and unclean, is food liked by people in the mode of ignorance." (Bg.17.7-10)

Herein, it is clear that pure and wholesome vegetarian foods are what is needed for our own refinement, health, strength, and happiness, while other kinds of food cause pain, suffering and disease. It does not take much comparative study to recognize this.

Furthermore, 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 karma. 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.

Another reason why no meat is mentioned as being acceptable to Lord Krishna is that the soul, which is a part and parcel of the Lord Himself, is equally present in not only humans, but all species of life.

"The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [or outcaste]." (Bg.5.18) Thus, a wise person recognizes the value of life, the soul, within all species of living beings. Because he recognizes the soul in all bodies, he does not cause any cruelty to them. Cruelty or suffering inflicted on any living being will certainly cause harm to ourselves and regression in our own development, spiritual or otherwise. Compassion and kindness to all beings is how we make spiritual progress. Is there anything that is really more important that this? As Lord Krishna explains:

"One who is not envious but who is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor, who is free from false ego and equal both in happiness and distress, who is always satisfied and engaged in devotional service with determination and whose mind and intelligence are in agreement with Me—he is very dear to Me." (Bg.12.13-14)

Thus, how can we be kind to all living entities if we are looking at them as if they would be our next meal? This is not compassion, concern for others, or kindness. It is no different than the way animals look at each other with the intent to eat another being, or with fear to keep from being eaten. As human beings, we should be better than that, certainly more developed than carrying a mere animal mentality within ourselves. Meat cannot be acquired without violence to others, and unwarranted violence toward others offers nothing elevating to anyone. It is hardly God's philosophy to be a friend to humans but an enemy to animals by wanting to slaughter and eat them. What can be more thoughtless and evil than that? Thus, this sort of nonviolence that is exhibited toward others, as when one abstains from eating meat, is a godly quality, as Lord Krishna further explains in Bhagavad-gita (16.2-3): ahimsa or nonviolence is one of the transcendental qualities that belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.

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."

"Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)

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.

There are also references in the Mahabharata that forewarn the activity of eating flesh. This is in the Anushasana Parva section where there is a conversation between Yudhisthira and Grandfather Bhishma about the merits of abstaining from meat eating and the demerits and consequences for doing so. It is quite revealing. One quote is: "He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next] birth." (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)

"The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it--all these are to be considered meat-eaters." (Mahabharata, Anu.115.40) 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." (Mahabharata, Anu.115.33)

A more thorough and educational rendering of the teachings of Bhishma in the Mahabharata is as follows:

Bhishma started, "Numberless discourses took place between the Rishis on this subject, O scion of Kuru's race. Listen, O Yudhisthira, what their opinion was. (115.7)

"The highly wise seven celestial Rishis, the Valakshillyas, and those Rishis who drink the rays of the sun, all speak highly of abstention from meat. The self-created Manu has said that the man who does not eat meat, or who does not kill living creatures, or who does not cause them to be killed, is a friend of all creatures. Such a man is incapable of being oppressed by any creature. He enjoys the confidence of all living beings. He always enjoys the praise of the pious. The virtuous Narada has said that that man who wishes to multiply his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures meets with disaster. (115.9-12)

"That man, who having eaten meat, gives it up afterwards wins merit by such a deed that is so great that a study of all the Vedas or a performance, O Bharata, of all the sacrifices [Vedic rituals], cannot give its like. (115.16)

"That learned person who gives to all living creatures the gift of complete assurance is forsooth regarded as the giver of lifebreaths in this world. (115.18)

"Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (115.20)

"What necessity be said of those innocent and healthy creatures gifted with love of life, when they are sought to be killed by sinful wretches living by slaughter? Therefore, O King, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of the celestial region, and of happiness. Abstention of injury [to others] is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truth from which all duty emanates. (115.21-23)

"Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature is killed it cannot be procured. Hence is the fault of eating flesh. The celestials who live upon Svaha, Svadha, and nectar, are given to truth and sincerity. Those persons, however, who are for satisfying the sensation of taste, should be known as Rakshasas [flesh-eating demons] pervaded by the quality of Darkness. (115.24-25)

"If there were nobody who ate flesh, then there would be nobody to slay living creatures. The man who slays living creatures kills them for the sake of the person who eats flesh. If flesh were not considered as food, there would then be no destruction of living creatures. It is for the sake of the eater that the destruction of living entities is carried on in the world. Since, O you of great splendor, the period of life is shortened by persons who kill living creatures or cause them to be killed, it is clear that the person who seeks his own good should give up meat altogether. Those dreadful persons who are engaged in the destruction of living beings never find protectors when they are in need. Such persons should always be molested and punished even as beast of prey. (115.29-32)

"That man who seeks to multiply his own flesh by (eating) the flesh of others has to live in this world in great anxiety, and after death has to take birth in indifferent races and families. High Rishis given to the observance of vows and self-control have said that abstention from meat is worthy of praise, productive of fame and Heaven, and a great satisfaction itself. This I heard formerly, O son of Kunti, from Markandeya when that Rishi discoursed on the sins of eating flesh. (115.34-36)

"He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (115.38-39)

"That wretched man who kills living creatures for the sake of those who would eat them commits great sin. The eater's sin is not as great. That wretched man who, following the path of religious rites and sacrifices as laid down in the Vedas, would kill a living creature from a desire to eats its flesh, will certainly go to hell. That man who having eaten flesh abstains from it afterwards acquires great merit on account of such abstention from sin. He who arranges for obtaining flesh, he who approves of those arrangements, he who kills, he who buys or sells, he who cooks, and he who eats it, [acquire the sin of those who] are all considered as eaters of flesh. [Therefore] that man who wishes to avoid disaster should abstain from the meat of every living creature. (115.44-48)

"Listen to me, O king of kings, as I tell you this, O sinless one, there is absolute happiness in abstaining from meat, O king. He who practices severe austerities for a century, and he who abstains from meat, are both equally meritorious. This is my opinion. (115.52-53)

"Yudhisthira said: Alas, those cruel men who, not caring for various other sorts of food, want only flesh, are really like great Rakshasas [meat-eating demons]. (116.1)

"Bhishma said: That man who wishes to increase his own flesh by the meat of another living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel than he. In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his life. Hence, one should show mercy to the lives of others as he does to his own life. Forsooth, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed. There is great sin attached to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it. (116.11-13)

"There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit, either in this world or in the next, to the practice of mercy to all living creatures. (116.19)

"Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. They who eat the flesh of animals who are desirous of life, are themselves [later] eaten by the animals they eat. This is my opinion. Since he has eaten me, I shall eat him in return. This, O Bharata, forms the character as Mamsah [meaning flesh] of Mamsah [me he, or "me he" will eat for having eaten him]. The destroyer is always slain. After him the eater meets with the same fate. (116.32-35)

"He who acts with hostility towards another becomes victim of similar deeds done by that other. Whatever acts one does in whatever bodies, he has to suffer the consequences thereof in those bodies. (116.36-37)

"Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (116.38-39)

"Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty." (116.40) THE QUESTION OF WHETHER LORD RAMA ATE MEAT IN THE RAMAYANA Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki's Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana 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 Ramayana, Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: "Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam."

The literal translation of this verse is: "Sri Rama 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, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat." This incorrectly implies that Rama 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 Rama 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 Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it.

THE PRINCIPAL OF BEING MERCIFUL Meat-eating and animal slaughter also disrupts and disregards the doctrine of ahimsa, or non-violence. It is not possible to kill animals for the pleasure of the tongue without violence. The Padma Purana (1.31.27) simply says that, "Ahimsa 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 ahimsa.

Ahimsa 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 ahimsa, 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 karma and for spiritual advancement is being merciful, based on ahimsa. 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. Karma 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 karma, 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 Sri Caitanya-caritamrit a (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 Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Caitanya-caritamrit a (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 karma.

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 karma 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.

----------

Dear friends,Jai Shri Ramji,Vegetarianism is "non-voilence" or ahimsa, it is "satvik".Well, many persons say that plants also have life, so why not killanimals & eat them.When we eat fruits , vegetables etc, then we are hurting a livingorganism to very little extent as plants have only two sense organs,so they feel lesser pain than animals.For instance, when your hairs or nails are cut then u do not have anypain , so is the case of eating fruits & vegetables.However, when u kill an animal, then you can yourself see the animalin pain, crying & shouting in distress and helplessness.In fact I have seen that many non-vegetarians do not ever watch theslaughtering of animals, because if they were to see this act, theywould not be able to eat it anymore.Many intelligent non-veg people says that if this is the explanation,then will u consider it correct to kill a blind or deaf person as healso have less sense organs???The answer to this is that a blind or a deaf & dumb person thoughphysically can't see or hear respectively, but as they are humanbeings- their level of growth and senses allow them to psychologicallysee or hear.The physical sense organs are of importance but the psychic organs aremore imp. Therefore, when u kill an animal it cries & shouts while aplant does not.Again, since the plants have life , we should cut or pluck as minimumas possible (i.e. to fulfill only our genuine needs).This will also be helpful for our earth's ecology & also ourspirituality- as it is said that "jaisa khaogey ann vaisa hoga mann"-means your mind will be in accordance to the food you eat.Dr. Amit Prakash Jain---Kabeer Das saysHindi:Bakari paati khat hai, taakii khineenche khaal;jo jan bakari khaat haintaaki kaun havaalEnglish:Goat that eats leaves is stripped of her skin, what should happen tothose eating goat?As per Bhagwat Gita, 'sva bhaav' (independent nature) is altered by interaction,learning, work and consumption. The 'bhaav' is dependent nature and thus, poseslimitation to sva bhaav. If interaction is by prem (love), the product carriessat gun and svabhaav is united (bhakti) and improved. If it is by materialnature, product is with raj guna and it does not improve the svabhaav butprovides satisfaction temporarily. And if the relationship is of enemy, theproduct will never be able to satisfy, and consumers will only increasebusiness. Sat guna satisfies more with less consumption, Raj guna satisfiesless with more consumption; and Tam guna does not satisfy at all, andconsumption rises exponentially.regardsK G Misra---Hari Om,Plants do have soul (Jeeva). Human superficial senses cannot realisethe killing of plants. ONLY after science developed or knowing fromhindu scripts, we come to know that there is jeeva in plants. As longas one can see physically through eyes that there is suffering in akilling, then it has to be avoided. To the extent GOD has given brainand heart to feel and recognize the endured suffering. A lion killinga deer, no one can file a criminal case, as it has only 5 senses. Manhas 6th sense to understand things around him and can feel that aanimal suffers when being slaughtered. A man can know that he is beingattacked or killed. Killing a human is known in our sastras as "BrahmaHati". One raises above normal man, when he thinks killing animals is sin.In Srimath Bagavath, Bharatha yogiswar (who was born as a deer due toattachment in previous birth) used to eat only dry grass or leaveswhere there were no ants or insects to avoid harming insects andplants. Human birth is Dullabom (Rare and Precious) therefore onemust use there discrimination at all times in everything thingincluding food habits. How to live a divine life, is to be known fromscripts.B.Sathyanarayan , "sadhak_insight"<sadhak_insight wrote:>> Shree Hari> Ram Ram>> Thank you for bringing this point in the forefront. A similar> question was asked in the past and great information was shared.>> Yes ! Vegeterianism is important and essential for those on the> spiritual path. Detailed answered are provided in the links below ->> Particularly read the following links ->> Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture> By Stephen Knapp (Shri Srinanandanji)> /message/627>> Vegeterianism supported even in Bible - by Stephen Knapp> /message/626>> Vegeterianism - Scientific Evidence> /message/632>> Please search gita talk group by entering "Vegeterianism" in the> search window for additional discussions.>> Ram Ram>>> --> Shree Hari,>> Hari OM to everyone. I have a question today. Could somebody please> answer the following question?>> A friend of mine asked me that why are you vegetarian. I told him> that I don't believe in killing animal and eating them.>> He replied me that even plants and trees have a JEEVA (SOUL) in them> but you would still eat them. I told him that but I am not killing an> animal or anybody.>> I couldn't answer him properly. So could somebody please help me> understand that what a difference between being a vegetarian is (but> the plants have the JEEVA too).>> Please help me with this issue. I know we have an answer of this> question in Shrimad Bhagvad Gita but can not find it.>> Thank you>> Ram Ram> Kaushal Patel> >> FROM THE MODERATOR>> The following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk discussions.>> 1. Purpose of the group is to help Sadhaks clarify their doubts> related to Gita shlokas. For responses to be posted, they must further> clarify the understanding of Gitaji.> 2. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or other scriptures to> substantiate the response> 3. Please limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc.> 4. Kindly make your responses concise and to the point. (Up to twenty> line maximum, if possible).> 5. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.> 6. Please do not include links to other sites or other organizations> 7. Please do not include your personal information such as phone> number, address etc.> 8. Kindly do not address the response to a particular individual,> since the message is going to the entire group.> 9. Due to a large readership, not all responses will be posted.> 10. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if content is> unclear or not appropriate for distribution to the group.> 11. Please respond taking into consideration novices, youth,> westerners, non-secterian audience. Please limit the use on only> sanskrit words, and provide the english word with sanskrit bracketed> wherever possible.>> MODERATOR> Ram Ram

[Guest pratibha shukla]

Hi

Discussion on this topic is really very necessary ,because sometimes people argue about vegetarianism and give a foolish explanation.

As I believe, I got to understand from science and our religion, I intend to share my thoughts through some of the point as undesaid -

 

1) Vegetarian  in Hindi  'Shaka-haari'   means the people who eat herbs (shaak means plants, and haari means consumer ), though this word is for specific people who eat plants or plants parts like roots ,seeds,fruits etc.

 

2)  As we all know that our HINDU VEDA were the first books, and they were all based on science.

In Hindu religion it has been said that, as we eat, it will have an impact on our heart or health,and it has been proved by many world scientists that vegetarian concept is best for exceptional health. Even our human body organs and structure are suitable for herbivorous and not carnivorous habit.

Carnivorous animals have different teeth and digestive mechanisms from herbivorous animals.

 

3)Plant organ systems is totally different from   animal organ systems,,,,,, they don't have brain ,bone,blood and nerves system.

Some plants grow more after cutting them, while animals can never regenerate and die after removing an organ or body part

 

There are lots of reasons for being vegetarian, and especially involves no sin of killing or slaughtering an animals, and gives a better and longer life with less chances of cancer, heart disease, blood pressure, dementia etc.................... So enjoy being a vegetarian and have a great healthy life.  

 

Regards .....Pratibha shukla

[Guest Shardool]

People here have mentioned almost all reasons which I also believe to be true. I would like to add one more addition here which makes vegetarians different from non-vegetarians. My answer is dependent on my own observations and views.

 

One of the most important trait in animals (I am including humans in my this definition of animals) is highly grown level of emotions and belongingness. Animals are known to have complex emotions like love, anger, friendliness etc. Plants might have emotion which is not fully proved yet, but for sure it is very less evident. Animals feel sad, happy, they mourn if they loose someone, they form families, help their offsprings to grow, learn their customs and skill to survive. Majority of plants have not undergone such mutation to have such feelings.

Let alone the personal pain and agony of animals which we love to have as our food, we are taking there right to live in this world just because we are on top of food chain.

For advocates of Non-veg, we consider abduction, kidnapping killing of fellow human beings as a crime but you try to justify the same things which you do to these animals which are low in food chain because of your common greed. When a man kills a boy, we sympathise with his parents, but we do the same things to animals by stealing babies, brothers, parents of their lives. When a person steals in a society, he is a thief, but when every person in a country steal, stealing becomes the order which people abide and live by.

 

Coming to the point that plants have life, yes of-course they do. We humans also have 'life' right? which makes human also eligible for being eaten by fellow human according to a non-vegans. Next time anyone ask about your being vegan, don't defend, ask them instead why don't they eat humans and just listen to their reasons. Its not just life but its the package which comes with a life. We take away everything from animals be it family, friends and their life and fool ourselves by even trying to compare this with plants.

 

One messages to Non-vegans, please be whatever you want to be but please do try to develop some rationale when you try to ask this question "Why be Vegetarian ? After All Plants Also Have Life ?". You take a lot more than a life when you kill someone to have it as your food.

[hoLkaPoLka]

Plants are demoniac species, thereby lacking concentration, awareness over existence and emotions in opposite of physical beengs. Thereby it is not the same as meat eating.