Vegetarianism is recommended in Vedic scriptures

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.

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."

      

 "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."

(Yajur Veda 12.32.90)

       There are also references in the Mahabharata that forewarn the activity of eating flesh:

"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)

       "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.

       In Bhagavad-gita, however, we also find similar verses on what is recommended for human consumption. Lord Krishna says,

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." (BG.9.26)

This means that not only should one be a vegetarian and eat only fruits, water, grains, vegetables, etc., but such items should be made as an offering to God with love. The reason is that,

"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 what is offered are only those things that Krishna accepts. That becomes prasada, or remnants of foods offered to the Lord.

       As further elaborated in Bhagavad-gita by Lord Sri Krishna:

"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.9.27)

       Herein 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.

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 PRINCIPLE 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-caritamrita

(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-caritamrita (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:

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.

              For those of you who would like to learn more about what a vegetarian diet can do for you and how to cook vegetarian meals easily, there are plenty of books available to help you get started. Or check here on my website for additional information and resources to get started.

[This article available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com ] 

A once- meat-eater's call to Vegetarianism

 From

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-hindus-call-to vegetarianism_b_989423.html?section=india

A Hindu’s Call To Vegetarianism

By

Gadadhara Pandit Dasa

(Author, Well-being Expert, Meditation teacher, and Chaplain at New York University and Union Theological Seminary)

No matter how much I try and explain the benefits of a vegetarian diet, there are always people who, while nodding their heads in agreement with everything I say — will conclude our dialogue by saying, “but...I love my meat.”

I know how difficult it is to give up eating meat, as I ate it for over 20 years of my young adult life. It took me almost a whole year to wean myself off of it. It had become something like an addiction. I was vegetarian until the age of seven, while growing up in India, but soon after we moved to the U.S., it was burgers and fries and everything else I could get my hands on. For some reason, I can still remember very clearly the first time I ever bit into a burger, sitting at Wendy’s. I was too young to think about it philosophically, but something about the experience is lodged into my head.

The main reason I became a vegetarian, about 14 years ago, was for the reason of compassion. I had started exploring the spiritual direction I wanted to take for my life and the teachings of the Gita and the meditation practice I had adopted inspired me to incorporate a more compassionate diet, where others wouldn’t have to get brutalized simply for the satisfaction of my tongue.

I had never seen animals as sentient beings. Television advertisements do such a good job of making them look simply like a food product, like cereal or candy bars. Companies do such an amazing job of hiding how animals spend most of their lives in cages, unable to move or turn around, or living knee-deep in their own fecal matter.

Most of us would puke and might even get traumatized if we saw how animals actually get killed in a slaughterhouse. Here’s a mild video from PETA giving us a glimpse of reality that we ignore. Don’t worry, it’s milder than a lot of the video games out there today.

I learned from the Hindu scriptures, and our teachers of the past and present, of the karmic implications for one who causes, directly or indirectly, physical, financial, or emotional harm and suffering to others. This not only refers to actions directed towards other humans, but also to animals and the environment.

The law of karma records everything we do. “Karma“ literally means “activity,” so a karmic reaction would be a result of one’s activities. In this case, even if we don’t directly hurt a human or animal, but if we partake of something that caused suffering, we will have to undergo some pain and suffering as a reaction to that activity. That reaction may come in this life or a future life. It’s like making a credit card purchase and getting the bill 30 days later. The Manu Samhita and the Mahabharata, respectively, further expound on this point.

“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...”

(Manu Samhita 5.51-52)

“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, Anushasana Parva 115.33)

People always ask the question, “What about killing plants? Doesn’t that create bad karma?” Abstaining from killing is one of the foundational teachings of Hinduism. Yes, killing plants does involve some violence, but since plants lack a central nervous system and a brain to process pain, they don’t experience pain the same way humans and animals do, and thus the violence is minimized. Moreover, a lot of fruits and vegetables will fall off the tree when ripe. A cow or pig will never just drop a part of its body and grow another.

A simple question I’d like to pose: If you had to show your child where his or her food came from, where are you more likely to take them, a farm where fruits and vegetables are harvested or a slaughterhouse?

Animals live and care for each other as much as humans do. They will do whatever they can to defend their family members. They suffer emotionally when their offspring are taken away from them. How is it that we can be so callous towards these creatures of God? The goal of Hinduism is to love God. However, in order to love God, we need to love all of God’s creatures, which means the two-legged, the four-legged, the winged and the gilled.

In America alone, the largest meat consuming nation on the planet, over 10 billion animals are killed for food each year. This number doesn’t include fish. We really need to ask ourselves if all this violence is really necessary? There is no shortage of food, especially in this country. And, according to the USDA, there is no shortage of protein in vegetarian foods.

There is also enough evidence that indicates that a vegetarian lifestyle will not only be better for our health, but also for the planet. Here’s a great article from Mark Bittman called “Rethinking the Meat Guzzler” in which he describes in great detail the damage that’s done to our planet as a result of raising and killing so many animals. So, with all these reasons, ranging from freeing ourselves of karmic debt, living a healthier life and preserving the planet, is it enough for us to just say “but...I love my meat?”

Follow Gadadhara Pandit Dasa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nycpandit

***********

Food for Thought:-

Hinduism has advocated well being for all animals and planets and not destruction of them as seen in the Swasthi vachan

"swasthir maanushEbhyah :

Oordhwam jigaathu bheshajam/

Sham no asthu dwi-padhE:

Sham Chathush padhE

OM Shanthi Shanthi Shanthi:"

Translation:-

Let there be goodness to human beings.

Let the plants which are like medicine to us grow up well.

Let the bipeds and quadrupeds be well.

Let there be our goodwill to them.

Let there be peace at all three levels of

Bhu (physical),

Bhuvah (vital)

and swah(mental levels of) all these beings

What is the Hindu concept of Vegetarianism?

The Hindu Concept of Vegetarianism:

A Philosophical Defense

By

Frank Morales - University of Wisconsin-Madison

The ancient Hindu diet of vegetarianism has recently been gaining a great deal of popularity, both as a diet and as a way of life. Influenced by a number of different factors, millions of people worldwide have been increasingly turning to this ancient vegetarian lifestyle. In the United States alone, there are an estimated twenty-million people who consider themselves vegetarians. Their reasons for turning to the vegetarian diet are almost as diverse as are the individuals themselves. As medical data continually streams in linking meat-eating with a number of illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, many have chosen to renounce meat for health reasons while others have decided to become vegetarians for primarily ethical and moral concerns. As the animal rights movement continues to gain momentum, many are beginning to recognize the natural link between fighting to alleviate the suffering of animals in laboratories and hunting ranges and our refusal to consume their tortured bodies in our kitchens.

Another concern of vegetarians is the adverse impact upon our environment due to the wasteful policies of the meat industry. Consequently, a large number of environmental organizations have adopted vegetarianism into their agendas. Despite the fact that vegetarianism has gained a great deal of recent popularity, however, it still remains a little understood phenomenon to some. What is even less known is the truly ancient and spiritual roots of the vegetarian philosophy. In the following, we will explore the philosophy of vegetarianism from the ancient Hindu perspective.

One of the central tenets of Hindu philosophy is the concept of ahimsa, or non-violence. While many ethical systems espouse some form of non-violent ethic or another, what makes the Hindu practice of ahimsa radically unique from other systems is the universal scope of its concern. For most ethical schools of thought, the concept of ethical concern extends no further than the human race. The criteria for whether or not a being is worthy of being the object of compassion is determined by the species of the being involved. For Hindus, on the other hand, all living creatures are worthy of respect, compassion and ethical concern, irregardless of whether they are human or non-human.

The general Western consensus is that humans are completely justified in their treatment of animals, both theologically and philosophically. From the Christian philosophical perspective, it has been claimed that animals are of an inferior order of being in comparison to humans. This being the apparent case, it is perfectly permissible for humans to kill animals for consumption, or for any other purpose they deem appropriate. Animals were, after all, created by a loving and compassionate God - so the Biblical argument goes - for our own needs. Animals are seen as being mere means to an end. That end is the gratification and satisfaction of human needs. Thus, all non-human living beings have no inherent value as ends in themselves, but only acquire a minimum sense of value as objects for our use. Indeed, God Himself seems to have confirmed this functionalist relationship between human and non-human animal in the Bible:

“God blessed them saying: ‘be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds in the air, and all the living creatures that move on the earth.’” (Genesis 1:28)

One representative of this distinctly anthropocentric outlook was Thomas Aquinas, the great synthesizer of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian dogma. He has written that,

“...irrational creatures have no fellowship with human life, which is regulated by reason. Hence friendship with irrational creatures is impossible...”.

(Summa Theologica)

Thus stands the traditional Christian argument in favor of man’s continued exploitation and killing of animals.

If one examines these opinions with a deeper philosophical scrutiny and from the perspective of the Hindu concept of ahimsa, however, their many flaws are quickly revealed. First of all, while it is apparent that God gave us a superior position over animals in the hierarchy of being, this higher status does not automatically give us the right to kill other life-forms simply for our selfish ends. Mere superiority over another sentient being can never be interpreted as a license for abusing a less capable being, or a class of such beings.

The contemporary philosopher Bernard Rollin confirms this in his Animal Rights and Human Morality,

“Even if man has been placed by God at the peak of the Great Chain of Being, or even in command of it, it does not follow that the creatures beneath him many be treated in any way he sees fit.”

If it were the case that superior beings have the right to exploit supposedly inferior ones, then it would be morally permissible for one human to enslave and victimize another.

An intellectually or physically more powerful man could justifiably kill another, weaker man. Physically weaker women and children would be at the mercy of stronger, abusive men.

Indeed, the entire moral order - which is based on the premise that ethical means, and not merely brute force, should be used to achieve ends - would collapse.

Moreover, the Hindu position is that if we are, indeed, superior to other life-forms, we should clearly exhibit that superior nature precisely in our actions towards them. It is the very height of irrationality, says Hinduism, to claim that our inherent intellectual and ethical superiority over other beings gives us license to then act in unthinking and immoral ways towards these less capable beings. Overall, then, the traditional Christian philosophical arguments against compassion towards animals simply does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Two other, somewhat more sophisticated, arguments used to justify the unwarranted killing of animals are as follows. First, animals are incapable of thinking rationally. Therefore, they are not worthy of the same ethical consideration that humans are. Only a being who is able to formulate (or at least understand) ethical principles via the process of discursive reasoning is eligible to be considered a moral agent, and therefore a moral object. The second argument is that only beings that are capable of communicating through language are to be deemed worthy of moral consideration. Let us now explore these anti-ahimsa arguments in more depth.

While seemingly valid arguments, from the Hindu perspective these two opinions are revealed to be somewhat flawed. If we were to hypothetically accept these two criteria as being valid, namely that only beings who exhibit the abilities to think rationally and to communicate verbally were worthy of being treated morally, it would then follow that several categories of human beings would also consequently lie outside the bounds of moral consideration. Human infants, for example, would not pass this criteria for ethical inclusion. Infants are incapable of either thinking rationally or of speaking. Does this fact, then, give us the right to kill human infants at will? According to the standard of judging who is worthy of moral treatment outlined above, the answer would have to be yes. The argument for ahimsa can be further developed.

For the defender of Western anthropocentric ethics may then attempt to rebut that while a human infant may be presently incapable of rational thought and speech, he/she is still categorically - and solely - worthy of our ethical treatment because there lies within this human infant at least the potential for these two faculties. Given time, the infant will eventually (and hopefully) think rationally and be capable of human speech. The new, broadened, standard for a being having inclusion within the scope of ethical concern would then be the possession of at least the potential for rational thought and language.

This anti-ahimsa argument, however, presents yet another problem. For there are several categories of human beings who do not possess even this minimalist potential. For example, what of a mute person who is simultaneously suffering from severe mental retardation and who will, consequently, never truly have even this potential? What of someone’s mute mom or dad who may be suffering from irreversible Alzheimer’s disease, and who has thus lost this potential? Again, following the logical chain of thought contained in the anti-ahimsa argument, these individuals would fall completely outside the scope of moral concern. The contemporary philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer goes so far as to say that, “Whatever the test we propose as a means of separating human from non-human animals, it is plain that if all non-human animals are going to fail it, some humans will fail as well.” (In Defense of Animals) In order to be consistent with his arguments, someone who opposes the concept of ahimsa would be forced to treat these people in the same terrible manner in which he treats animals: he would have a right to kill them at will.

The problem with these anti-ahimsa arguments is that they are using the right criteria for the wrong argument. The abilities to think rationally and speak are, indeed, correct standards for judging whether or not a being can be a moral agent, that is, whether or not a being is capable of comprehending and being accountable for its actions. Most human beings fall under this category. However, being a) a moral agent and being b) an object of moral concern are two completely different things. Agreeing with this criteria, Bernard Rollin writes,

 “It is easy to see, of course, why rationality would be important for a being to be considered a moral agent, that is, a being whose actions and intentions can be assessed as right and wrong, good or bad...but it is, of course, not obvious that one must be capable of being a moral agent before one can be considered an object of moral concern.”

This point having been firmly established, then, exactly what would be the proper criterion for deciding which living beings will or will not be included within the range of moral concern?

For Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), to be a proper object of moral concern, all that is required is that a being is sentient, that is, that it be a living being capable of experiencing feeling, and thus pain. All living beings, irregardless of their physical form, are atman, or individual units of consciousness, in their innermost essence. The attributes of atman are sat, chit and ananda, or being, knowledge and bliss. The atman is the ultimate experiencer of all that occurs to the body, either good or bad. That being the case, causing any suffering to any living being is considered to be the greatest offense. If any being is capable of experiencing pain, regardless of what species that being is a member of, it is immoral to needlessly inflict pain on that being.

That a being is unable to express itself rationally only tells us that we will not be able to engage in a philosophical dialectic with it or have a conversation with it about the latest fashion trends. But, by registering such a clearly and universally recognizable verbal sign of suffering as a scream when we abuse it, torture it or try to kill it, a conscious being is pleading with us to cease its suffering. The entire realm of living beings thus falls within the scope of moral concern. It is in keeping with this ethic of valuing all life that thoughtful Hindus follow a strict vegetarian diet, a diet which seeks to reduce suffering to its minimal level.

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

Excerpted from

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_otherlang_1_index.html

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

By

K. Sadananda

Recently two questions were asked –

Does Hinduism require one to believe in God?

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

In a recent article, I have addressed the first question. 

Here I will provides some thoughts for the second question.

In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism stands

for and who is truly a Hindu. 

In essence, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma,

and that Dharma is from time immemorial –

it involves pursuit for Moksha.

Therefore the one who is seeking for Moksha is a true Hindu,

Irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed or gender. 

With that catholic

understanding, one can see that Hinduism becomes a way of life

because the pursuit of the essential purpose of life is

the goal of the Hindu life.

With that perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions

including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. 

Since the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha,

until we reach that we need to live. 

Only death is the death of the ego that happens in the

spiritual awakening. 

Hence, keeping the body alive by nourishment is

our Dharma. 

That means one has to eat to live

(not the other way – living for eating sake!)

Life lives on life. That is the law of nature.

 Whether I eat an animal or plant I am destroying a life.

Among all life forms Man is different from the rest of the life kingdom. 

He has the capability to discriminate the right from wrong.

That also gives him the freedom of choice. 

Plants have just body and perhaps a rudimentary mind.

Animals have both body and mind to express

 feelings and suffering, but rudimentary intellect. 

Man has not only body, mind

but also well developed intellect to discriminate, decide and to choose. 

He always has three choices –

Karthum sakhyam, akartum

sakhyam and anyathA karthum sakhyam –

he can choose to do,

not to do and

do it other way. 

For animals and plants there is no freedom of choice.

They are instinctively driven. 

Cow does not sit down before meals, and

inquire whether it should be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

So is a tiger. 

For a Man the discriminative intellect is very evolved.

Plants and animals do not commit sin in their actions

because there is no will

involved in their actions.

For a human, the story is different. 

You may wonder why I brought sin in the argument. 

Let me explain.

Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. 

It is these agitations that

prevent me in my journey to Moksha.

Mind has to be pure

(meaning un-agitated)

for me to see the truth as the truth. 

To define sin more scientifically - it is the divergence

between the mind and intellect.

Intellect knows right from wrong –

but we feel like doing things even

though we know they are wrong –

that is, the intellect says something,

but mind which should be subservient to intellect rebels and

does whatever it feels like. 

This divergence is sin. 

After the action is performed -

there is a guilt feeling,

because intellect, although was overruled, does

not keep quiet, it keeps prodding

" I told you it is wrong.

Why did you do it?"

With peace of mind gone Man goes through a "Hell". 

Man is not punished for the sin,

he is punished by the sin! –

Think about it.

All yogas, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration

Between the body, mind and intellect. 

For a Yogi - What he thinks, what he speaks

and what he does are in perfect harmony or alignment

(Manasaa vAcha karmana).

In our case, we think something but have no guts to say

what we think, our lips says something

different from what are thinking –

if you watch the lips and the actions that follow,

they are again different! -

There is no integration anywhere.

We live a chaotic life. 

Besides deceiving others,

most pathetic is we deceive ourselves,

and the worst thing is we don't even realize that.

Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. 

Because its intellect is rudimentary,

 and it does not go through any analysis

 before it kills –

“should I kill or not to kill –

Should I be a non-vegetarian or

should I be vegetarian?". 

When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand,

it kills it pray and eats what it needs and

 leaves the rest when it is full. 

It is not greedy either. 

That is its Swadharma.

It follows a beautiful ecological system.

It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. 

"Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?"

is asked only by a man. 

Why that question comes?

Because man has discriminative intellect,

and he does not want to

hurt others to fill his belly. 

He learns what `hurt' means because

He surely does not want others to hurt him.

Plants are life forms too, should one hurt them?. 

 You may ask. 

If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best,

but that is not possible. 

Life lives on life -that is the law of nature. 

My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is

to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive. 

At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants.

That is why eating to live and not living to eat is

the determining factor.

In Bhagawad Geeta, Krishna emphatically says

that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha)

should have a compassion for all forms of life –

Sarva Bhuta HitErathAha. 

In the spiritual growth, one develops

subtler and subtler intellect

(Sukshma Bhuddhi in contrast to TeeKshna Buddhi, i.e.

sharper intellect).

That is, the mind is becoming quieter,

 calmer and

self-contended.

Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. 

Hence it is advisable to be a vegetarian.

Even the traditional non-vegetarians repel against

eating dogs and cats or

other human beings! Why? 

Meat is a meat after all! 

But with familiarity grows a compassion.

There are many two legged animals in human form

with rudimentary intellect.

They behave like animals. 

But in the evolutionary ladder one develops

subtler and subtler intellect,

then it is advisable to be a vegetarian –

only taking from nature what it needs to keep the body going.

One should not hurt any life forms

to satisfy the craving of one’s tongue.

Should Hindu be a vegetarian?

Since such a question already arose in your mind,

you have a degree of sensitivity not to hurt

other living forms to satisfy your belly.

Then you may be better off not eating meat and

You will be at peace with yourself. 

Since you are sensitive to this your

intellect directing you one way and

your mind wants some baser pleasures

and directing you the other way.

When you go against your own intellect

you commit sin.

That is against your SWADHARMA as Krishna puts it.

Besides, now, even the traditional non-vegetarians

are choosing vegetarianism

not because of any compassion to other animals

but they are recognizing that it is not good for their health.

I have already mentioned that

Hinduism has no doos and don'ts,

but you determine your own doos and don'ts

based on your intellectual values,

culture, education and primary goal in life. 

You will find that

Following your Swadharma makes you comfortable with yourself.

It is not others to judge, it is for you to judge. 

If you are agitated, that means

you are loosing peace of mind for these and

that is a sin! 

Imagine yourself that chicken or cow that you are eating.

Would you not advice the guy who is eating you

to be a vegetarian instead and spare its life? 

Do not say you are not killing the animal yourself,

and killing will go on whether you eat or not.

If you don't eat, one animal is spared.

This is the demand and supply. 

I may not be stealing myself,

but if I buy the stolen property knowing that it was stolen,

it is a crime!

Is it not? 

Now there are imitation meats too –

so why the crave for a dead meet?   

Why do you want your stomach

to be a burial ground for a dead animal?

********************

Food for Thought:-

Manu Samhita says

5/51. 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).

5/52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).