Eating Meat.

[Guest guest]

Milk is also a non-vegetarian food.

 

It is an animal food.

 

Those who talk of vegetarianism should abstain from drinking milk also.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Milk is also a non-vegetarian food.

It is an animal food.

Those who talk of vegetarianism should abstain from drinking milk also.

Jai Ganesh

Milk is a natural product, first we have it from our natural mother then we take it from the cow who produces more then required for the calf.

there is no killing involved.

Any wonder why Hindus worship cow as a mother?

Sad are those people who after having been fully satishfied by her milk sends her to slaughter house simply because she stops producing milk.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

There is a bit of vehemence with the way the administrator has reacted to Singhi Kaya's post suggesting that eating meat is sinless. It may be that my post here will be kicked out for pointing this out, but I thought I may just add a few thoughts.

 

I also wrote an immediate reply to Singhi Kaya's post not accepting his proposal. However his views are not isolated and are common to a good class of Hindus, and they are not fools ignorant of the scriptures. The approach of Hindus (very sincere) to their religion varies from one to another, and a forum should try to accomodate with such different views. Swami Vivekananda argued with several orthodox people that meat (including beef) was part of the ancient Brahmin's diet and in fact, that Hindus should take to meat-eating in order to get ourselves out of slavish lethargy and become competetive with other nations. His Guru who is widely respected also ate fish. Whether we like them or not, agree or not, they were sincere (great, if I may) Hindus. The emphasis of the religious pursuit need not be in the cooking pot, and not all will admit the cap of sin based on diet.

 

Does quoting scriptures change people's opinions with regard to their philosophical leanings? They argue on their own views one way or another. Quoting scripture is not going to make a man sinful for eating meat, and even if you think it does, please give them the room to debate with others according to their understanding. Most of the world and our own people, good human beings sincere and true, take to non-vegetarian diets, whether by upbringing or necessity. If the question arises one way or another, let them find their answers. The emphatic one-way approach is in my opinion never the way of the Sanatana Dharma.

 

I drink curd by upbringing. It bothers me sometimes nowadays that it is created by lakhs of little beings, and I am deliberately using them to make curd, then consuming them along with the curd ! Maybe it is sinful now by scripture; maybe I can quote scriptural praise of curd and butter on my side. I don't know, and it is confusing to go this way. If it bothers me enough, I may end up leaving curd and taking to what they call a 'vegan' diet. Is this religion or craziness? Give each person their time.

 

I have gone to a Buddhist website by chance a couple of weeks back and saw Singhi Kaya's admirable defence of our relgion. I hope he does not

feel out of place in this website.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Does quoting scriptures change people's opinions with regard to their philosophical leanings? They argue on their own views one way or another.

You seem to miss the point. The poster made absurd claims that our Hindu scriptures do not condemn eating meat and that eating meat is 100% sinless. When it has been shown beyond doubt that our scriptures condemn killing of animals for meat, and that eating meat is repeatedly stated to be sinful, rather than acknowledge this or try to refute this the reply given is, "No, actually it isn't sinful." So despite providing scriptural evidence, it is ignored and one continues to misrepresent our scriptures by stating that the scriptures support eating meat and it is sinless.

 

The key point is that this person claims our scriptures state this. If that is the case then he needs to deal with the scriptural evidence provided. If he said it is my personal opinion that eating meat is fine but this has nothing to do with the Hindu scriptures, then he can post it. But if he misrepresents Hinduism by saying "all our scriptures say eating meat is sinless", but then fails to provide any scriptural evidence backing this up and instead copies and pastes an article from Islamic anti-Hindu websites, then his posts will not be entertained. Therefore I have provided the following ground rules for this discussion:

 

1) All above verses that unequivacally state eating meat to be sinful must be dealt with directly verse by verse.

 

2) Counter scriptural evidence must be provided with original sanskrit stating eating meat to be sinless. Verses without sanskrit provided will not be entertained, as someone's english copy and paste from anti-hindu websites carry no weight in these forums.

 

Is that really so much to ask? I have seen this same discussion occur on another forum that went on for over 100 pages of posts without a single scriptural reference being given. This forum is for spiritual discussions based on scriptures, not for people to make absurd claims that will misguide innocent readers.

[Guest guest]

Two points.

 

1. Why should one be a vegetarian? Because one feels natural concern for life and aversion for slaughter or because some old sanskrit book says so?

 

2. The Manu Samhita is a highly discrminating text which is pro-Brahmanas and has some very bad things to say about Shudras including some highly "mature" concepts like pouring molten lead into their ears if they chance to hear the recital of Vedas.

 

If one follows the Manu Samhita, should one follow it fully or in parts? If you follow only some parts of it you are not treating it as authoritative. You are actually using your own intelligence!

 

Books such as the Manu Samhita are wish lists of parochial individuals rather than a way of life. There is no evidence that the Manu Samhita and such texts were actually followed as rule books by society at any point of time. We can be glad that people had better sense.

 

The Mahabharata has the story lof a butcher who due to his good nature has the merit to advise and educate a Brahmana. These stories are avoided by proponents of vegetarianism to maintain a consistent picture of vegetarianism in ancient India. But the fact of the matter is, meat eating and animal sacrifice were clearly in practise at all times. I know places where chicken are still sacrificed (and then eaten) today.

 

There are also a number of sections of Indian society which are pure vegetarian and have been so for several genrerations. In short, India was never fully vegetarian at any point and there is enough evidence to attest that. Instead of turning to age-old, obsolete scriptures, it is better to look into one's own heart and make life style choices.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

First of all the Manu Smriti is not even a Hindu scriture it is an outdated code of conduct that was once followed in some parts of India. It does not influence all of Hinduism. It is likely to be the work of many people, probably at different times as some parts contradict other parts.

 

But it is true that at one time there was Animal sacrifices and even Beef eating. I have read this for myself in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, where it recommended eating beef if a woman wanted to beget a child learned in the Vedas. Of course this makes no sense and it was challenged and rejected that is why this practice is no longer followed today.

 

But bear in mind that Hinduism is an evolving religion and what may have been done a thousands of years ago is no longer relevant in this day and age. Hinduism recommends vegetarianism for those who try to follow it, but doesn't force it, for this reason there are still many meat-eating Hindus. But for another religion - Jainism, vegetarianism is an absolute requirement of the faith.

 

For Vivekananda, as great as he is to actually recommend meat-eating for all Hindus in India, just so to get out of the slavish mentality is quite irresponsible of him. It is against people conscience to eat meat, so is Vivekanada telling them to go against their conscience? Eating meat would not get you out of a slavish mentality - look at Black folks from Africa, they have been slaves all over the world throughout history and ate all sorts of meat. You would have thought Vivekananda would have known better! I've come across Hindus who eat meat and still have that slavish lethargy, it doesn't make you more brave or more of a man. Gandhi was a vegetarian and took on the British empire, he took many physical beatings yet he continued as the pain didn't effect him.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

But it is true that at one time there was Animal sacrifices and even Beef eating. I have read this for myself in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, where it recommended eating beef if a woman wanted to beget a child learned in the Vedas.

Again you have been misled by propoganda from muslims and christians. The alleged quote from Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad has been dealt with in the thread "Did Rama Eat Meat?". It is unfortunate that these people from other religions can make claims that such and such is in our scriptures and Hindus blindly believe them. You could never do this to a Christian and Muslim, because they know what is in their scriptures. But Hindus generally have no clue what their scriptures teach. For example, probably only 5% or less of Hindus have read the Bhagavad Gita fully in their entire life. A very sorry situation for Hinduism.

[Guest guest]

 

Again you have been misled by propoganda from muslims and christians. It is unfortunate that these people from other religions can make claims that such and such is in our scriptures and Hindus blindly believe them. You could never do this to a Christian and Muslim, because they know what is in their scriptures. But Hindus generally have no clue what their scriptures teach. For example, probably only 5% or less of Hindus have read the Bhagavad Gita fully in their entire life.

I am very much aware of the propaganda muslims and christians use against Hinduism and I have seen many of their websites misquoting Hindu scriptures and even describing verses from some obsure Hindu books that nobody knows about. I agree that alot of Hindus are in a bad state and some don't even know a thing, it's a wonder they still call themselves Hindus. Some are just born into a hindu family and live a completely non-religious life not learning anything about Hinduism throughout their entire life. They can't really be called Hindus can they?

 

However, it has to be said that the quote about eating beef in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is very much there. I have seen it with my own eyes in the versions by Radhakrishnan (The Principal Upanishads) and the version published by the Ramakrishna mission. The fact that no Hindu follows this practice for as long as we can remember shows it couldn't have stood the test of time. I'm sure no Hindu today actually believes that eating beef will produce a good son learned in the Vedas. None of the great Vedantic acharyas agreed with this. Whoever wrote that part of the Brahadaraynkaya Upanishad may have been a rebel against the vedic religion, because it is so unusual to have something like that in an Upanishad when the subject of the Upanishads are about the relationship between God, Soul and matter.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

This what you saked for isn't it? Please stop trying to edit the truth away.

Dear Guest, you have yet to fulfill the two requirements for participating in this thread. I will relist them for you:

 

1) All above verses that unequivacally state eating meat to be sinful must be dealt with directly verse by verse.

 

2) Counter scriptural evidence must be provided with original sanskrit stating eating meat to be sinless. Verses without sanskrit provided will not be entertained, as someone's english copy and paste from anti-hindu websites carry no weight in these forums.

 

You have attempted point two while skipping point number one. I will now deal with the verses you cite, but if you wish to participate in this discussion you must complete point one.

 

First, this verse does not say there is no sin ("papa"), it says these people should not be faulted (dosha). Karmic reactions will always be there, but since these activities are being performed under the jurisdiction of Vedic sacrifice (as mentioned throughout this chapter of Manu Samhita), therefore these people should not be condemned. Furthermore, the verse is making a distinction between pravriti marga (the path of bondage) and nivriti marga (the path of liberation). For conditioned souls on the path of material bondage, these actions are natural and so they shouldn't be condemned since they are at least engaging in this activities through yajna. A more accurate translation would be:

 

na māḿsa-bhakṣaṇe doṣo

na madye na ca maithune

pravṛttir eṣā bhūtānāḿ

nivṛttis tu mahā-phalā

"It may be considered that meat-eating, intoxication and sex indulgence are natural propensities of the conditioned souls, and therefore such persons should not be condemned for these activities. But unless one gives up such sinful activities, there is no possibility of achieving the actual perfection of life."

 

The verse from Manu samhita comes from the same section addressed previously that is speaking of the ritual known as pitru yajna wherein flesh is offered to the forefathers. Taking a single verse from the chapter to distort the message of Manu is the usual technique of Christian and Muslim missionaries trying to convert Hindus to their faith.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam (11.5.11) directly explains this verse from Manu Samhita (5.56):

 

loke vyavāyāmiṣa-madya-sevā

nityā hi jantor na hi tatra codanā

vyavasthitis teṣu vivāha-yajña

surā-grahair āsu nivṛttir iṣṭā

loke — in the material world; vyavāya — sex indulgence; āmiṣa — of meat; madya — and liquor; sevāḥ — the taking; nityāḥ — always found; hi — indeed; jantoḥ — in the conditioned living being; na — not; hi — indeed; tatra — in regard to them; codanā — any command of scripture; vyavasthitiḥ — the prescribed arrangement; teṣu — in these; vivāha — by sacred marriage; yajña — the offering of sacrifice; surā-grahaiḥ — and the acceptance of ritual cups of wine; āsu — of these; nivṛttiḥ — cessation; iṣṭā — is the desired end.

 

"In this material world the conditioned soul is always inclined to sex, meat-eating and intoxication. Therefore religious scriptures never actually encourage such activities. Although the scriptural injunctions provide for sex through sacred marriage (vivaha), for meat-eating through sacrificial offerings (yajna) and for intoxication through the acceptance of ritual cups of wine (sura-graha), such ceremonies are meant for the ultimate purpose of renunciation."

Foolish people take the Manu Samhita verse in isolation from the chapter it comes in, in isolation from the overall teachings of Manu, and in isolation from the teachings of scriptures and sadhus, and blindly conclude that engaging in meat eating, illicit sex, and intoxication is sinless.

 

Now after reading the complete statements of Manu (provided below) and the explanation given in the scriptures, understand the context of this statement from Manu regarding "meat", "liquor", and "sex". As the Bhagavatam states above with the words vivāha-yajña surā-grahair, the process by which these three are engaged in is through marriage (vivaha), through yajna, and through ritual offerings of wine. And as has been pointed out before, even this pitru yajna has been forbidden in the age of Kali (citation below). But people who want to eat meat need to find some justification to satisfy their minds that they are actually following dharma. So they search through anti-Hindu websites for verses that convince them eating meat is sinless. Ask yourself why no Hindu saint is citing these verses, or why no Hindu websites are quoting them? The reason is simple, because they are distorted and taken out of context.

 

This is exactly the reason I have suggested people need to learn Hinduism from a guru or sadhu, because self study will result in confusion and ultimately misrepresentation, which will eventually lead one away from the path of dharma. The example here is very clear. We have someone who is completely convinced that he knows the scriptures, and his conclusion is that it is sinless to eat meat, engage in illicit sex, and take intoxication. His conclusion is exactly opposite to what the scriptures teach, but because he has not received this knowledge from a guru he is bewildered by maya.

 

Further details about Manu Samhita have already been given previously, and I will repeat them here:

 

Someone has alleged the Manu Samhita declares eating meat to be sinless. Here is what the Manu Samhita actually declares. The verse above comes in the exact same section as these verses, yet these people mysteriously don't find them because these aren't listed on the Christian and Muslim websites that they get their Hinduism from:

 

anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii |

sa.nskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashcheti ghaatakaaH ||

svamaa.nsaM paramaa.nsena yo vardhayitumichchhati |

anabhyarchya pitR^In.h devaa.nstato.anyo naastyapuNyakR^it.h

“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 pitrus or the ancestors, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.” (Manu-samhita 5.51-52)

 

In ancient times particular animals were offered as a sacrificial offering to the pitrus, not as food. Foolish people being misled by anti Hindu sites read these descriptions and conclude that eating meat is sinless despite the fact that throughout the Vedic scriptures killing of animals is forbidden. Even the pitru yajna, which is one of the few ancient sacrifices involving flesh, is forbidden in the Kali yuga:

 

asvamedham gavalambham sannyasam palapaitrkam |

devarena sutopattim kalau panca vivarjayet ||

“Five things are forbidden in the age of Kali – horse-sacrifice, cow-sacrifice, acceptance of sannyasa, offering flesh to the forefathers (pitru yajna) and begetting a child in the womb of the wife of one’s elder brother.” (Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Krsna-jnama Khanda 185.180)

 

Elsewhere in the Manu Samhita we find the following:

 

yaGYaaya jagdhirmaa.nsasyetyeshha daivo vidhiH smR^itaH |

ato.anyathaa pravR^ittistu raakshaso vidhiruchyate ||

"‘The consumption of meat is only for Pitru yajna,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas."

 

So in the direct words of Manu, all of the Hindus who eat meat are Rakshasas - demons, not even human, what to speak of Brahmanas.

 

More from Manu:

 

yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam.h |

vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani ||

"As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it suffer violent deaths birth after birth."

 

yo.ahi.nsakaani bhuutaani hinastyaatmasukhaichchhayaa |

sa jiivaa.nshcha mR^itashchaiva na kva chit.h sukhamedhate ||

"He who injures harmless animals due to a wish to satisfy his senses, never finds happiness, neither while living nor dead."

 

yo bandhanavadhakleshaan.h praaNinaaM na chikiirshhati |

sa sarvasya hitaprepsuH sukhamatyantamashnute ||

"He who does not cause suffering and death to animals, but desires the good of all living entities, obtains endless bliss."

 

yad.h dhyaayati yat.h kurute ratiM badhnaati yatra cha |

tadavaapnotyayatnena yo hinasti na kiM chana ||

"He who never harms any creature, attains without an effort what ever he desires, succeeds in what he undertakes, and attains what he fixes his mind on."

 

samutpattiM cha maa.nsasya vadhabandhau cha dehinaam.h |

prasamiikshya nivarteta sarvamaa.nsasya bhakshaNaat.h ||

"Having well considered the disgusting origin of meat and the cruelty of slaying innocent animals, everyone should completely abstain from eating meat."

 

na bhakshayati yo maa.nsaM vidhiM hitvaa pishaachavat.h |

na loke priyataaM yaati vyaadhibhishcha na piiDyate ||

"He who avoids eating the meat from the Pitru yagna, does not eat like a Pisacha (demon). He becomes dear to all, and will not be tormented by diseases. "

 

varshhe varshhe.ashvamedhena yo yajeta shataM samaaH |

maa.nsaani cha na khaaded.h yastayoH puNyaphalaM samam.h ||

"He who during a hundred years annually offers an ashvamedha yajna, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct)."

 

maaM sa bhakshayitaa.amutra yasya maa.nsamihaad.h myaham.h |

etatmaa.nsasya maa.nsatvaM pravadanti maniishhiNaH ||

"‘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’ (mamsah)."

 

Thus it is abundantly clear that Manu has forbidden the killing of animals for food. Only those who receive their knoweldge of Hindu scriptures from anti-Hindu websites, instead of from saints and gurus, fall for these absurd claims.

 

It should be noted that all of the above verses come in the exact same section as the Manu Samhita verse that is always cited in favour of meat eating. Just see how taking a single verse out of context can mislead the innocent public.

[Yegan]

Wonderful, Crystal clear

Hari bol

[subroto]

 

I was born a brahmin and I have always ate meat. In my region (eastern <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region>) meat eating is accepted even in brahmins. Food habits are determined by the geo-physical location of the individual. Some areas' veg diets are not easily found. There is absolutely nothing to do with vegetarianism and non-violence. This extreme position is only there in few cults and may have to do more with Jainism and Buddhism. Those who think non-violence implies vegetarianism have neither understood non-violence nor vegetarianism. I don't intend to indulge into arguments on this, but concept of non-violence is much more profound than jainist/buddhist non-killing - after all lord krishna inspired arjuna to slay his cousins!!! Vegetables are living beings too and eating them is killing as well.. Shakta’s sacrifice various animals in rituals – before consuming them.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

So eat what is more naturally available at your place. Vegetarian diet is more full of sattvic qualities helpful in a spiritual life. Meat is Rajasik or Tamasic depending on how it is prepared. That’s the only reason Veg diet is preferred, and it may not be suitable and possible for all.

But please abstain from eating beef, if you plan to become a Hindu. There’s no alternative there.

Yes krishna urged arjuna to slay his cousins but not for the purpose of eating them or sense enjoyment so that point is toally irrelavant.

Secondly, yes a vegetarian diet is sattvic, that is one of the many advantages of eating a vegetarian diet.

Yes vegetables are living things too, but they are lower developed species than animals, therefore in eating vegetables we incur less of a karmic debt than eating meat. We have to kill in order to survive, thats just the way we are created for eg. Just by breathing we are killing thousands of bacteria and germs, thats one of the reason why we are supposed to offer everything we eat( vegeterian food) to the lord as prasadam so the lord forgives us for the karmic debt we incurred upon ourselves in eating that food.

But using that as an excuse to eat meat is deplorable.

Also advanced yogis (which are very difficult to find in india nowadays) in the ancient times hardly ate anything.

Check this website out

http://www.solarhealing.com/

"If one continues to apply the proper sungazing practice for 6 months, they will be free from physical illnesses. Furthermore, after 9 months, one can eventually win a victory over hunger, which disappears by itself thereafter."

[R_A_J]

I Eat Meat, I think its fine, Its in our nature. I wonder if cavemen knew how to farm or not??

[bhaktajan]

Another day, another epoch:

 

Yamaraja: Ok R_A_J, lets see what it says in your book . . . hmm . . . ok . . . ok . . . Well, it seems that after 33 earth years of wakefullness you've accomplished a rather mediocre acchievements in your life--

 

R_A_J: Is that bad or good--

 

Yamaduta: Be quite and listen!

 

Yamaraja: No. No. It's ok. Your life is nothing to be ashamed of, you are not alone. If fact you are in the majority.

Anyway let see again what else it says . . . nine of of ten commandmants . . . not bad . . . above average--

 

R_A_J: That's good right--

 

Yamaduta: Be quite and listen!

 

Yamaraja: No. No. It's ok. Your life was . . . Ha, You worked industriously and contientiously . . . but the liberties for your animal-eating must earn you some demerits--

 

R_A_J: No one warned me--

 

Yamaduta: Be quite and listen!

 

Yamaraja: No. No. It's ok. All you must do is pay back the cost(s) of the liberty of the animal's 'life-time' as restitution for impeding another living entities life . . . and then every thing will return to a more preferable status for you.

 

R_A_J: But I was just following orders! But I was just following the other school-of-fish--

 

Yamaduta: Ok, let's go.

 

Yamaraja: We'll see you in a flash, when all this is sorted out.

 

R_A_J: Oh my G--{BLOOP}<BLOOP>

 

Yamaraja: Next!

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

REMEMBER: "Ignorantia juris non excusat" --Ignorance of the law is no excuse [but it may garner some simpathy --but not on a busy case load day].

 

REMEMBER: Manu-samhita says that the animal, with the least amount of karmic debt, for flesh eaters, is Birds.

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ---- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

'UPNEXT, THE NIGHTLY NEWS' -- It's 155 Trillion earth years since Brahma was born, do you know where you karma will take you?

[Haridasdasdas]

 

I Eat Meat, I think its fine, Its in our nature. I wonder if cavemen knew how to farm or not??

 

1. Don't necropost. This thread is from 3 years ago!

 

2. Follow Dharma, stop manufacturing principles based on flawed speculation and your own selfish desires. Clearly it has been described several times in this post that there should be no meat eating.

 

3. You are not a 'Caveman', although I can see from your post why you made the mistake.

 

4. If you are going to reply to a 3 year old thread AT LEAST READ IT FIRST. Your unintelligent stance has been defeated several times.

[The Sage Nabooru]

Well I do not eat meat. I grew up in a Christian household, an American one, mid-American to be exact, and that was most of our diet. And now my parents are vastly overweight, loaded with health problems, yet it's like a drug, they are addicted to beef and pork. They know it's bad for them but they can't stop.

 

I was like that too, it never occured to me where it came from. I don't think to most people it does. Or they don't care. My family, I think, was typical - we only thought about ourselves, our own sensations, desires and convenience. That's why animal rights matter so little in the US. If you don't have to do the slaughtering, the blood isn't on your hands. Right? Right?

 

So anyway, it wasn't until I was much older that it became known to me how much animals suffer and how their suffering was legitimate and just as painful as my own. In all honesty I was brought up to believe that because God "gave" animals to people they could do all hell with them, it was their divine right. I certainly don't believe that now, how could I? Does their blood not flow? If they didn't feel it, wouldn't they withhold their screams?

 

I know I sinned terribly and in great ignorance those years of my life when I was so selfish as to not care that cows were getting pistons in their brains by the billions, that chickens were not so much "humanely slaughtered" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!) as pulled apart without a care, and so on, only thinking of the taste in my mouth. I told myself I didn't have a choice - what a filthy lie! How could I not have a choice? Was I force-fed the same way the animals were that I was eating? Now I do all I can to repent, I suppose you could say. I adopt animals and care for them as I would for a child. I make sure they are fed as I make sure I am fed.

 

I think the poor health that accompanies meat-eating is only proof that it's against godliness. And you know, people act like they're making this huge, unbearable sacrifice giving up meat - I hardly notice it. It's amazing how easy the switch is.

[Haridasdasdas]

 

Well I do not eat meat. I grew up in a Christian household, an American one, mid-American to be exact, and that was most of our diet. And now my parents are vastly overweight, loaded with health problems, yet it's like a drug, they are addicted to beef and pork. They know it's bad for them but they can't stop.

 

I was like that too, it never occured to me where it came from. I don't think to most people it does. Or they don't care. My family, I think, was typical - we only thought about ourselves, our own sensations, desires and convenience. That's why animal rights matter so little in the US. If you don't have to do the slaughtering, the blood isn't on your hands. Right? Right?

 

So anyway, it wasn't until I was much older that it became known to me how much animals suffer and how their suffering was legitimate and just as painful as my own. In all honesty I was brought up to believe that because God "gave" animals to people they could do all hell with them, it was their divine right. I certainly don't believe that now, how could I? Does their blood not flow? If they didn't feel it, wouldn't they withhold their screams?

 

I know I sinned terribly and in great ignorance those years of my life when I was so selfish as to not care that cows were getting pistons in their brains by the billions, that chickens were not so much "humanely slaughtered" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!) as pulled apart without a care, and so on, only thinking of the taste in my mouth. I told myself I didn't have a choice - what a filthy lie! How could I not have a choice? Was I force-fed the same way the animals were that I was eating? Now I do all I can to repent, I suppose you could say. I adopt animals and care for them as I would for a child. I make sure they are fed as I make sure I am fed.

 

I think the poor health that accompanies meat-eating is only proof that it's against godliness. And you know, people act like they're making this huge, unbearable sacrifice giving up meat - I hardly notice it. It's amazing how easy the switch is.

 

You're totally right, it's not an austerity at all. I'm shocked how people who live in India, and presumably have enough money to fund a computer and internet connection, will moan about how difficult it is. You live in America and you stopped eating meat with little fuss, what do people have to moan about in countries like the UK and India, where it is so much easier.

[santdasji]

Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivores, our anatomical equipment ­ teeth, jaws, and digestive system ­ favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.”

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man’s body hasn’t adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl Von Linne states, “Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.”

Comparison between carnivores, herbivores and humans

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

 

• Meat-eaters: have claws
  Herbivores: no claws
  Humans: no claws

 

• Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
  Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
  Humans: perspire through skin pores

 

• Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
  Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
  Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

 

• Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
  Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
  Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

 

• Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
  Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
  Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

 

• Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
  Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
  Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

 

• Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
  Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
  Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

Clearly if humans were meant to eat meat we wouldn’t have so many crucial ingestive/digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.

Why do people eat meat?

Many people ask me, “If we weren’t supposed to eat meat than why do we?”. It is because we are conditioned to eat meat. Also, the ADA (American Dietetic Association) tells us that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on a vegetarian or Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

A popular statement that meat eaters say is; “In the wild, animals kill other animals for food. It’s nature.” First of all, we are not in the wild. Secondly, we can easily live without eating meat and killing, not to mention we’d be healthier. And finally, as I have already shown, we weren’t meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.

If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form

[Gita Dharma]

 

... I don't intend to indulge into arguments on this, but concept of non-violence is much more profound than jainist/buddhist non-killing - after all lord krishna inspired arjuna to slay his cousins!!! Vegetables are living beings too and eating them is killing as well. ...

Yes it is true that vegetables are living however the eating of vegetarian food is necessary to survive and that makes all the difference in the world. Similarly "lord krishna inspired arjuna to slay his cousins" but that too was out of necessity (to uphold Dharma). Modern science has determined that not only are meat, fish and eggs not necessary for our survival but we will actually be much healthier without them!

 

www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vegetarian_foods.html

[Gita Dharma]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Milk is a natural product, first we have it from our natural mother then we take it from the cow who produces more then required for the calf.

there is no killing involved.

Any wonder why Hindus worship cow as a mother?

Sad are those people who after having been fully satishfied by her milk sends her to slaughter house simply because she stops producing milk.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

My understanding is that milk as produced in the United States contributes to the suffering of cows. The cows are artificially inseminated annually in order to maintain their lactation. When male calves are born, what is to be done with them? They become veal. I therefore do not consume milk or dairy products that are commercially produced in the United States since I do not want to contribute to the suffering of cows.

 

 

Corporate-owned factories where cows are warehoused in huge sheds and treated like milk machines have replaced most small family farms. With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature. To keep milk production as high as possible, farmers artificially inseminate cows every year. Growth hormones and unnatural milking schedules cause dairy cows' udders to become painful and so heavy that they sometimes drag on the ground, resulting in frequent infections and overuse of antibiotics.

 

Male calves, the "byproducts" of the dairy industry, endure 14 to 17 weeks of torment in veal crates so small that they can't even turn around. Female calves often replace their old, worn-out mothers, or are slaughtered soon after birth for the rennet in their stomachs (an ingredient of most commercial cheeses). They are often kept in tiny crates or tethered in stalls for the first few months of their lives, only to grow up to become "milk machines" like their mothers.

 

video: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=unhappy_cows_uncut <br>

[Haridasdasdas]

That seems a reasonable point Gita Dharma.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Talking about Vegetarian diet, in India (in Bengal) the vegetarian diet is known as Vaishnava food. But traveling to Tamil Nadu you are surprised to see vegetarian food referred to as Saiva food. The vast majority of the Tamil Nadu Saivites are vegetarians.