Meat Eating Humans

[anveshan]

Here is a subjected presented for discussion”Improper Justification to Meat Eating.” By vsd prasad. . The author seems to be offended by and worried about carnivorous humans.

 

The humans those do not have a natural and historical perspective about meat-eating thinks within the four walls that religion constructed and they are perennial prisoners of their on obstinate beliefs. Prejudiced or perverted versions of their own religions tend them to think prejudicially.

 

Logically and without favour or hatred think of these:

 

1. All beings are born of the Reality Ultimate(whose qualities and attributes remains to be a fathomless

mystery). Beings, static and dynamic, has life in it. And “isovasyam idam sarvam” . Everything has the Ultimate Reality in it or are part of a single whole.

2. Those cereals and grains the vegetarians eat, are full of life. Think of a living being(that too who

is helpless and cannot resist unlike the animals) mercilessly being pounded, made into a powder

or paste or boiled. Think of a delicious cashew kernel chewed mercilessly between your carnivorous teeth. A seed which is thronging with life and can procreate itself…Same thing about some of the roots and tubers.

3. And of the ‘holy’ cow milk you say. Thousands of living organisms are in it. If you take it fresh, you

are digesting it, if you are boiling it, you are boiling them alive.

4. The only difference is when you are killing a cow or goat, it cries or sheds blood . It may also resist.

You can feel their pains with your outer sense-organs. To feel the pain of a seed, or a blossoming tree

when it is cut, you need to use your abstract inner sense.

 

5. Now to those who say that the cow is holy or the pig is unholy. Nothing unholy about the things of

Nature, living or non-living. Even the human excreta or the menstrual blood is not unholy. It is of the

nature and goes into nature and is recycled naturally. The sum total of material forms remain static.

We say something is “holy” or “unholy” because it does not conform to the social or religions ethos

of our concepts of ‘beauty’ and ‘cleanliness’. If a poor goat or deer could be slaughtered and eaten,

the cow and the pig is no exception, provided you like the taste and provided you eats it on your own.

6. In all societies animal sacrifice to appease the supernatural was prevalent in some form or other.

In India and most of the afro-asian societies it is prevalent even today. Think of a God who gets

too pleased with that. May be IT does not differentiate between vegetarian and non vegetarian beings.

Both belongs to IT.

 

 

7. And finally, the Hindu, Muslim and Christian connotations to eating habits.

The tiger is ferocious, but it kills when only it is hungry or disturbed. Likewise a snake is venomous.

But it bites only when it is hurt or disturbed.

Unfortunately the ‘crown of beings’ is filled with most venomous of venom. Hatred. It is that venom

which made Rama with a Parasu to annihilate and wipe out the Kshatriya community 21 times. It is

that venom that ruled the able Arabian warrior and administrator, Mohammed to torture, subjugate or

annihilate pagans and kafirs, for his allah did not like them. Very simple. “My IT is true, thine is not”

 

Kindly note that this is not with fear or favour to any religion.

 

=anveshanam=

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Please see:

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=26305

[anveshan]

August Sir,

 

Whether it is " mahim sat sarva bhutani", 'ma nishada' or what the biblical god said "thou shall not kill" it is IT who said(am I correct?) And to my mind IT cannot differentiate or do not differentiate between ITs beings. All are of IT and belongs to IT.

 

As I humbly submitted, life is life and living energy is living energy. To me a worm could be 'nikrushta', but not to IT who caused it. I taste and savour meat of the innocent deer just the same way I taste and savour an almond or cashew seed. I am mercilessly killing. When I slaughter, the first can make noises, the poor, defenceless latter cannot. So this view is narrow and prejudiced.

 

The good lord is infallible. He cannot issue fallacious

instructions like 'manishada' or 'thou shall not kill'.

When IT knows that it is impractical. And IT has not made alternative arrangements.

 

Let us avoid killing animals-both humans and non-humans-

to the maximum. But let us not fight and spew venom on what should be eaten and not eaten. Nature has entrusted us with conservation, not destruction. Let us strive to fulfill it

regards

anveshanam

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Let us avoid killing animals-both humans and non-humans-to the maximum. But let us not fight and spew venom on what should be eaten and not eaten.

 

 

Those of us who follow sanatana-dharma accept Lord Krishna's instructions in Gita as infaliable truths. Your speculations may be interesting, but I don't see any permanent value in them over that of Lord Krishna's guidance.

 

You respect the deer's life energy as you chew him up to satisfy your tongue. Sure. Why stop there? Why not respect the life energy in humans, as we eat them to solve world hunger? Rejection of God's order brings us to the platform of animilistic thought, where there is no right and wrong. The scriptures teach us to develop the divine qualities, through proper conduct, and to give up the animilistic propensities. These divine qualities begin with mercy, cleanliness, austerity and truthfullness.

 

All this talk about respecting the energy in others as you kill them is rubbish. If all energies are one, and we are just respecting that one energy, then respect it from the side of the eaten. Become the eaten, feed yourself to the fireants, the wolves, the tigers. This is the armchair philosophy Prabhupada speaks of throughout his books. "Yes, I kill and eat animals, but I am respecting their energy." Sure, let's see you have your energy respected by them.

[vsdprasad]

dear anveshan,

nice to see you post. well, nobody is stopping you to eat whatever you like. You are free to have your own choice but just remember we are only trying to remind you of something known as karma or laws of nature- (An Infallible Justice). You may believe it or not, you may just try to speculate about it. No body is stopping you to speculate.

 

There is something called 'prarabdha karma' out of the three types of karma. You may be least bothered to know what IT is. But ultimately IT is the thing which determines who you shud become next- any of those 84lac species of life or a person who transcends all of them.

 

You may not believe the traffic rules in your state and say I can do whatever I like. What is then the difference between a dog and a man? If you flout the rules, then you will be punished according to the state laws, which you might have never heard of or least bothered to know.

In the same way, it is your destiny based on 'karma' which you are acquiring thru your actions. The choice is yours...

 

-Prasad.

[anveshan]

August Sir,

 

You have mistaken and misunderstood my armchair philosophy. I did not say you eat animals or seeds.

I expressed an opinion. I said nothing ‘ unnatural about eating habits or preferences’. And I hold that view. May be wrong to some, may be wrong to all. I do not differentiate between life forms. If some dogs and human kids are standing in front of me, I feed them equally. With equal affection. I do eat sometimes live things, knowing very well that I am destroying life-forms. NOT LIFE. None can chew up energy and savor it, whether of animals or plants. Eternal, immutable, ageless it is. Life –form is life form, animal or plant. It is unfortunate that we cannot sustain without destroying life forms. You only have to accept that both are life forms and we are destroying when we relish it. In spite of arguments and counter arguments, I find that meat eating is not unnatural. It is my opinion. Nothing religious about it.

 

I have been living on a diet of ksheeram, patram, phalam and thoyam, for the last eight years. Now I can

Relish bitter gourd and neem leaves raw. It is my option. I should not suggest that all others also should live on that.

 

Regards

=anveshanam=

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I do eat sometimes live things, knowing very well that I am destroying life-forms.

 

 

Since all are one, eat live humans as well. Why make distinction? Thus it is clear you do differentiate between living things - hence an armchair philosophy. Speak very high of a universal oneness, no distinction between life forms, but no actual application.

 

You are willing to not discriminate between a fruit and a deer. Can you actually apply your teachings and non discriminate between a fruit and a man? Can you eat a human, knowing they are all one?

 

 

I do not differentiate between life forms.

 

 

Though shown to be not true, why not extend it further and give up distinction between all matter. Eat dirt, wood, or waste products and see if there actually is an application to this philosophy.

 

[anveshan]

Dear Shri Prasad,

 

Prakruti knows it's prakruti. Fool as I am, how can I know?

And prarabdha, I have none. And my karma is what IT guides me:

 

"'Tis Nature which does all actions,

But the fool egoist thinks he is the doer

 

But one who knows, friend, the true principles

And divisions of the triple modes and actions

And has seen that it is the modes which act

On the modes-- such a man steers clear of all attachments"

(3:27,28)

..of all attachments, our on addictions and prejudices....

 

Regards

=anveshanam=

[anveshan]

Shriman,

 

You said I "speak very high of a universal oneness, no distinction between life forms, but no actual application.".

 

All I was trying to convey was eating any form is natural.

Both are living beings.

 

I have said elsewhere in this forum that there is nothing unholy or holy about human excreta or menstrual blood. It is we that give the color of beauty or holiness.

 

Regarding my becoming a narabhoji, an excellant idea. Let me try start trying meat first(whether I like the taste of it). Then I will try it to your peril, on you!

Best Regards

=anveshanam=

 

 

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Regarding my becoming a narabhoji, an excellant idea. Let me try start trying meat first(whether I like the taste of it). Then I will try it to your peril, on you!

 

 

This is the natural conclusion when we manufacture systems of dharma contrary to scriptural morality. In order for our system of thought to remain self-consistent, we need to extend the principles further and further till the conclusion becomes absurd.

 

Once we refuse to accept the existance of an ultimate moral duty (sanatana-dharma), we are left with animalistic propensities.

 

Right and wrong are only relevant if there is a supreme authority who governs reactions. If we do not accept a supreme authority (or natural law) purpose of action is lost.

 

Now, which school of thought to follow?

 

1) The above philosophy, where there is no position of absolute morality, and one's ultimate conclusion is to eat other humans - for after all the soul is eternal and morality does not factually exist.

 

or

 

2) The teachings of Lord Krishna, where one performs all actions as an offering to God, and one accepts only the purified remnants of sacrifice for one's maintenance.

 

Tough choice.

[Streetstraw]

Actually, if properly harvested, vegetables r not killed.

Of course we know no killing is involved with fruit picking & cow milking.

But what about grain?

SP stated: "In the case of grain, the soul leaves before the grain ripens."

Ask any undertaker, he'll tell u the same.

According to Gita 3.12-13, vegetarians don't kill.

But if they/we don't offer, we do steal.

So stealing is also sinful, though venial compared to mortal.

What to speak of unnecessary animal slaughter, human sacrifice is regularly going on today in various regions of Amerika's contiguous 48.

Everyone has misinterpreted Gita 11.32 to suit himself, herself.

"Humbug Civilization simply for flickering, temporary happiness."

[Coyote]

Here is one from Timothy I Chapter lV

 

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. "

 

I think that the erroneous concept that man is Lord and master of his environment perpetuated by many religions has caused tremendous suffering to the animal kingdom.

 

Still on the other hand in many places of the world in ancient times (& even today) fruits and vegetables were not that available.

 

 

[theist]

Here is one from Timothy I Chapter lV

 

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. "

 

 

coyote, I am just finishing a really good book called God's Covenant With Animals by J.R. Hyland(subtitled A Biblical Basis for the Humane Teatment Of All Creatures). i think you would like this book.

 

Paul was a Pharisee who was actively hunting down and killing the Jewish followers of Christ until he had a visitation from Christ that changed his heart. But old conceptions die hard.

 

We can take note of the one aggressive act performed by Christ was to drive the animal sacrificers out of the Temple by making a whip and overturning their tables. They had soiled the temple conplex by selling doves lambs and goats to be slaughtered as offerings to God.

 

By that as it may, there is a principle that we can progress even in respects to religious practice. From that I choose to reject Paul's advice. I consider it a leftover from his Pharisee days and a stumbling block to advanced religious principles in the Christian fold.

 

How can we in good conscience thank God for giving us the flesh of some poor animal that we have just tortured and slaughtered? Did he give it to us or did we just take it because we wanted to taste its blood?

 

I see no conflict in taking an orange from a tree and giving thanks or slcing it open and offering it to Krsna. See the difference my dear flesh eaters?

[Coyote]

Thanks so much for the book reference. The history of vegetarianism interests me greatly. Once my friend told me she was not a "Kosher Hindu" (meaning she ate meat). I had to laugh in spite of myself as those are two words you rarely hear in the same sentence.

 

I was thinking after the animal sacrifice in the temple in Christ's day and wondering how they ever got the kids to go to church. Can you imagine? Another interesting parallel is some say Buddha had alot to do with ending the practice of animal sacrifice in India yet it is not a particularly vegetarian religion.

 

I very much like this from Manu:

 

"As far as possible take clean and bloodless foods. It is true that the mental inclinations of the world on the path of persuit is in the direction of flesh foods and spirits and physical loves and lusts; and it may be said that there is no sin in these, especially in regulated forms and for Kshatriya & Shudra. But refraining from them brings High result. Flesh cannot be had without the slaughter of animals and the slaughter of breathing beings does not lead to Heaven. Therefore flesh food should be avoided. The man who has no will to bind and torture and slay innocent living beings, who wishes well to all, shall be blessed with enduring joy. And he who slays none shall acheive what he thinks what he plans what he desires sucessfully and without pain......"

 

What is interesting to me is that is very much appears to be speaking of karmic effects of slaughtering animals.

 

I have an interesting cookbook that I received at the Krishna Temple in Moundsville. There is an interesting theory in it that war is a karmic result of slaughterhouses.

 

Manu also speaks about overeating

 

"..... as it wars against health, against the functioning of the higher miond and therefore against the hope of heaven and the way of the virtuous-it breeds gross passions and is also against the rules of what is seemly and the equitable distribution of food amongst all who inhabit the earth....."

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I just want to know something what was your whole statement about?

 

Email me skaterjay25@aol.com

[Guest guest]

Some people like me who are not meat eaters due to the way they have been brought up have realized the very truth that the ignorance lies the perspective of one's own mind. On the other hand, the others who tend to not eat meat discriminate against the meat eaters due to the very ignorance in which they are brought up.

 

My very own grandmother used to discriminate against many of my friends who were "meat eaters" and "sudras". Its disgusting. The very notion of discrimination tends to lie in the very acceptance or denial of meat eating.

 

Meat eating is not barbaric neither is it civilized. Anyway, meat eating should not even come up as a discussion because when you are not even your body, then what ever goes into your body shall not effect you. Even in upanishads and various other scriptural texts, it clearly says one's actions affect him if he is attached to notions and actions... It does not effect him if he is not attached, now how can one penalize oneself after death for something he never did in the first place? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

-enlightened

[theist]

 

Some people like me who are not meat eaters due to the way they have been brought up have realized the very truth that the ignorance lies the perspective of one's own mind. On the other hand, the others who tend to not eat meat discriminate against the meat eaters due to the very ignorance in which they are brought up.

 

 

Since everyone is spiritsoul there is no need to discriminate against meat eaters.

 

 

The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste]. Bhagavad-gita 5.18

 

 

 

So why bother with the subject at all? Everyone is spiritsoul already so why teach or raise controversial issues?

 

Because even though this world is dream like it is nontheless real. Suffering though temporary is real. Most importantly it takes the intervention of others to help us grow to the point where we are awakened to our true reality in relationship to Krsna.

 

The meateaters real crime is not the eating of meat but the slaughter of the helpless animal. That causes suffering through the mind of the one dreaming I am an animal and quaruntees that the one who causes the suffering will have to experience a similar fate. The animal killer today is the animal killed tommorrow.

 

We want to end this cycle or at least pull as many as we can from its grip. So we speak strongly against animal slaughter for the benefit of both the killer and the killed. Not out of hatred for someone who is not living up to our particular religious code.

 

 

 

My very own grandmother used to discriminate against many of my friends who were "meat eaters" and "sudras". Its disgusting. The very notion of discrimination tends to lie in the very acceptance or denial of meat eating.

 

 

But don't fall into the trap of now discriminating against your grandmother. That was how she was raised perhaps and that soul that played the role of your grandmother will surely grow. Sometimes there may be a need to experience excessive aversion to avoid a certain association. Maybe it was just a bit of bigotry. Cut grandma some slack. She was disgusted by meat eating and now you are disgusted by her for being disgusted. What's the difference?

 

 

Meat eating is not barbaric neither is it civilized.

 

 

Actually animal slaughter in a time and circumstance where it is not even remotely a necessity IS barbaric. Hear the cries of those whose throats are being mercilessly sliced, so that some barbarian can taste their blood, with your heart instead of trying to atrifically positon yourself on the neutral platform.

 

Action-yoga is superior to so-called inaction. If you could maintain your present level of awareness and at the same time inhabit the animal form that is being slaughtered you would see what I mean. We can do something like that by developing the art of empathetic sight into the positions of others.

 

 

 

Anyway, meat eating should not even come up as a discussion because when you are not even your body, then what ever goes into your body shall not effect you. Even in upanishads and various other scriptural texts, it clearly says one's actions affect him if he is attached to notions and actions... It does not effect him if he is not attached, now how can one penalize oneself after death for something he never did in the first place?

 

 

But you bring it up for discussion. The test will come to you in some way. You may become ill, or falsely imprisoned, will you remain unaffected? Or you may win the lottery? Will you remain free from the slap of jubulation?

 

Better to act in the spirit of Sri Isopanishad, and help bring the world you are in closer to a God conscious place, and show your detachment before not being attached to the fruits of your actions. Krsna will protect you from any reactions that may appear in the discharge of this work, and other souls will be brought nearer to the level of realization that you yourself now enjoy.

 

Don't become an armchair liberationist, "...armed with yoga, stand and fight".

[Enlightened]

Wow, in reality i am the one who is delusional /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

thanks

 

[theist]

You ain't alone fellow soul. There are universes without number of us.

 

So we just keep chanting Hare Krsna