----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most vegetarians look so much like the food they eat that they can be classified as cannibals.
- Finley Peter Dunne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this blog is dedicated to all the vegetarians (and pseudo-vegetarians as well). While reading the usual shit, I've come across a few points through which I'd try and justify why Non-Vegetarianism is not a sin. I've taken some of the points from the book, "The Laws of Manu" (FYI). It's a really good book, I mean, really good.
Since childhood, whenever I came across a 'vegetarian', I used to ask the question, "Why don't you eat meat?". Some say, "It's a sin!"; some say, "I don't know, my fathers don't eat it, so I don't". However, the most common answer is: "How can anyone be so cruel? We do not do anything that is violent". The basis of 'not eating meat' is Violence (himsa).
Though, we all know what himsa is (hopefully), let me define the word anyway, so that it helps me in my argument. Himsa, literally means, "the desire to inflict injury". Eating and killing are sides of the same coin. You must kill (the lower animals in the food chain) in order to survive. It's the law of the nature, in the common jargon called, "the law of the fishes", where a big fish eats a small fish and a bigger fish eats the big fish. So, I wonder, how can it (killing for the purpose of eating) be classified as himsa? How can something that is natural be wrong? It's a matter of survival. Manu seems to agree with me too. He says:
Those who do not move are the food of those that move and those that have no fangs are the food of those with fangs; Those that have no hands are the food of those with hands; and cowards are the food of the Brave. (Manu 5:29)
Our (hindu) sacrad texts also reveal the same fact. "Meat is indeed the best kind of food" (11.7.1.3, Satapatha Brahmana). In the pre-vedic and the vedic times, even the brahmins used to eat meat. So, if you think about it, it seems that this idea (Vegetarianism) has been induced into our minds. How did that happen? When did that happen?
Everything was going well until two religions (philosophies rather) - Buddhism and Jainism - were gradually gaining (religious and social) power in the society. The so-called 'non-violent' principles (their concept of non-violence is flawed as well. I'll try to justify that in an other blog) of these religions posed a threat and challenged the assumptions of vedism. So, our (again, hindu) intellectuals came up with a solution. By then, the brahmins were already a superior sect. So, they claimed that they would no longer 'harm' the innocent beings. Since they were dhvijottamas (meaning, best of the twice-born), anything they would do also becomes a symbol of purity. Thus, not eating meat became a symbol of purity and non-violence.
P.S : Happy New Year. Hoping that you'd eat a lot of Non-Veg this year.
Most vegetarians look so much like the food they eat that they can be classified as cannibals.
- Finley Peter Dunne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this blog is dedicated to all the vegetarians (and pseudo-vegetarians as well). While reading the usual shit, I've come across a few points through which I'd try and justify why Non-Vegetarianism is not a sin. I've taken some of the points from the book, "The Laws of Manu" (FYI). It's a really good book, I mean, really good.
Since childhood, whenever I came across a 'vegetarian', I used to ask the question, "Why don't you eat meat?". Some say, "It's a sin!"; some say, "I don't know, my fathers don't eat it, so I don't". However, the most common answer is: "How can anyone be so cruel? We do not do anything that is violent". The basis of 'not eating meat' is Violence (himsa).
Though, we all know what himsa is (hopefully), let me define the word anyway, so that it helps me in my argument. Himsa, literally means, "the desire to inflict injury". Eating and killing are sides of the same coin. You must kill (the lower animals in the food chain) in order to survive. It's the law of the nature, in the common jargon called, "the law of the fishes", where a big fish eats a small fish and a bigger fish eats the big fish. So, I wonder, how can it (killing for the purpose of eating) be classified as himsa? How can something that is natural be wrong? It's a matter of survival. Manu seems to agree with me too. He says:
Those who do not move are the food of those that move and those that have no fangs are the food of those with fangs; Those that have no hands are the food of those with hands; and cowards are the food of the Brave. (Manu 5:29)
Our (hindu) sacrad texts also reveal the same fact. "Meat is indeed the best kind of food" (11.7.1.3, Satapatha Brahmana). In the pre-vedic and the vedic times, even the brahmins used to eat meat. So, if you think about it, it seems that this idea (Vegetarianism) has been induced into our minds. How did that happen? When did that happen?
Everything was going well until two religions (philosophies rather) - Buddhism and Jainism - were gradually gaining (religious and social) power in the society. The so-called 'non-violent' principles (their concept of non-violence is flawed as well. I'll try to justify that in an other blog) of these religions posed a threat and challenged the assumptions of vedism. So, our (again, hindu) intellectuals came up with a solution. By then, the brahmins were already a superior sect. So, they claimed that they would no longer 'harm' the innocent beings. Since they were dhvijottamas (meaning, best of the twice-born), anything they would do also becomes a symbol of purity. Thus, not eating meat became a symbol of purity and non-violence.
Adhii storyy ... inkendi! katha kanchiki, manamintiki!
P.S : Happy New Year. Hoping that you'd eat a lot of Non-Veg this year.
Hey! its as if my thoughts have somehow found their way into your blog.... I couldn't have agreed more!!
ReplyDeletePS: I can still feel the taste of the chicken tikka I ate yesterday night
:fear:
ReplyDeleteaithe tondaragaa patenting cheyinchukovaali ... :P
hey.. this is like saying "lets not wear clothes as our prehistoric ancestors walked around naked... that was the natural way of things and that must be true"... (that was a stupid example... but u get the point right?)
ReplyDeletetimes change... societies adapt to changing needs... what the brahmins did was a perfectly natural response to gain acceptance... hence the meaning of symbols change too... there is no point in going back to the older meaning as that was an entirely different situation... hence non-violence now became what was propagated by the Buddhists...
and not all veggies are dumb... and not all non-veggies are smart... most non-veggies would ask me "why do u eat plants because even they have a life and you would be killing it" :O
@pavan :
ReplyDeletefirst of all, aa example entra ... ur comparing apples with oranges.
I'm not saying that change is bad. There should be a change. kaani, 'pulini choosi nakka vaatha pettukunnattu' undoddhu kada. vaalla so-called 'non-violent' pronciples lo pedda flaw undi. chaala pedda reason le ... ikkada type chese opika ledu. ninnu kalisinappudu cheptaa :D
I too thought abt this subject once upon a time. funny thing is that depending upon what i want it to be I could convince myself that both the arguments are correct.
ReplyDeletefor veggies:
why kill animals when i could just as well survive on plants. coming to the argument that plants have life too, well we don't really see them dying struggling in a pool of blood and they can grow back.(ante nenu correct or wrong gurinchi cheppakunda why people dont worry much abt plants dying gurinchi cheputunna).
for non veggies:
well frm what i learnt at school we have a pair of teeth specifically adapted to eat meat. i think they are called canines. I thought well if God didnt want me to eat meat then why did he give me them. (of course u could say to test us. well this argument didn't appeal to me much)also when other animals can kill to survive why did it become wrong when it comes to us.
as u can see i got nowhere and in the end gave up with a conclusion that nothing is a "sin" when survival is at stake.
one more thing in favour of
ReplyDeletenon veggies:
i read somewhere that both the other major religions Islam and Christianity dont view this as a sin. In fact i think that article said that christians are of the view that God created everything for man.(may as well be a distortion of religion in the course of time, we will never know). and I think in the Gita, Lord Krishna said all religions are different ways to reach me. I see a contradiction here.
@pavan
ReplyDeleteThe point that was made was that the veggie argument about non-violence and 'eating non-veg is a sin' has no moral basis or rather it advocates superficial morals...
yes... not all veggies are dumb... for those ppl, vegetarianism is more of a lifestyle choice than a moral issue...
yayayaya absolutely great. but im still a veggie :(. maybe unlucky or so. but the ppl who started all this had their own load of reasons or some crap like that. anyways, history remade the distinction of the sects of societies on various basis. by history, i mean all the "so-called heads" of the ever-changing society and ultimately, the division of people based on "GUNA (character, i believe)" changed to the division based on "PUTTUKA (birth) and similar absurd changes led to these types of reasoning of why one wudnt eat non-veg. will try to give more particular comment when i too get to know of these things (Y)
ReplyDeletegood background work u r doing on wide range of topics. cheers mate.
in response to vsk's post-
ReplyDeleteIn the Bhagavad-Gita Krsna says:
sarva-dharmän parityajya
mäm ekam saranam vraja
aham tväm sarva-päpebhyo
moksayisyami mä sucah
(sorry for the funny characters)
translation:
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
So what is surrender? Surrender to Krsna is surrender to Krsna's instructions as presented in the Bhagavad-Gita.
patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah
translation:
if one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.
So to reach Krsna means to surrender to Krsna and to surrender to Krsna means to follow his instructions. I would encourage everybody (myself included at the top of the list) to find out Krsna's instructions and follow them with pure intention.
Regarding the comment made by vsk :
ReplyDeleteeven though the plans can grow back, it should still be considered as violence. In a hypothetical scenario, consider that the legs and arms of some animal grow back. Is it then justified to pull out their arms and legs, fry them and eat them ??? what the fuck !!!
(The point you've made in favour of non-veggies is awesome mann !!!)
Thanks for your contribution.
@ macabhay :
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing a few points from The Gita dude ... but, no offence, (being a hard-core ATHEIST myself) I think that the Gita has no other purpose except for a political one. Well, I think all the sacrad texts (irrespective of all religions) are for the same purpose (they are nothing but tools for mass manipulation and for political purpose.
A Reminder: Please do not deviate from the topic. This is not a question of whether or not it is a sin (as pointed out by layacharan). I'm just trying to reason out how this concept has come into place.
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot for your contributions and participation.
hypocrisy of our law-makers :
ReplyDeleteIt is mentioned in one of the sections (quite a few, actually) that while retiring to the forest, a hermit should carry a stick (some specifications given), a kalasha, a few other items and ... a deer's skin (if hez a brahmin) or wild-boar/tiger's skin (if hez a kshatriyaa) or a goat's skin (if hez a vysya) for his protection from cold. So, a brahmin cannot and should not kill or eat animals but, he can jolly well wear clothes of fur (that too, deer's ... This also points out the hierarchy among the varna).
Killing for the sake of eating is himsa but, making a fashion statement is not !!! WaaH !!! Kyaa baat hai!!
@bongu
ReplyDeletei think u gave the reason abt how this concept came, urself
u said tht when buddhism and jainism were becoming more powerful, even though thr was a flaw in their morals, seeing ppl getting attracted towards those religions, the so called heads of our religion might have taken this decision to retain its followers...i m not supporting them or anything, just trying to reason out...
sigh... wish i were a non-veggie... :(
ReplyDelete@pOtti : YEYEY !! final gaa nuvvu blogspace create chesukunnavannamaata ... edo okati raasi dengu ...
ReplyDelete@pavan : donga pooka !!! non-veg start cheyyamante kathalu dengutaavu ... malli ikkadikocchi mosali kanneellu kaarustaava ...
@ ALL : Do not fall into the traps of pavan. He NEVER wished to be a non-veggie. Hez bluffing.
Nice one.... I love non veg... but the basic reason why ppl think it is a sin is that it shows pain. Higher species show pain when they are suffering and this when compared to one's own suffering causes sympathy. Plants fail to express any such feelings.
ReplyDeleteRightly said !!! ... thanks for ur support dude .. :D
ReplyDelete@bongu:
ReplyDeleteI find it remarkable that you disregard the statements of the Bhagavad-Gita as "political" when they refer to and support a vegetarian lifestyle. However, you then (2 posts) after, refer to Sastra to try to draw hypocrisies. In regards to that post: Maybe you did not investigate to this depth, but it is also stated, that the brahmanas, are only allowed to wear skin of a dear that has died already by natural causes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually our teeth are very very similar when compared with herbivorous animals (e.g. gorilla). On the other hand when compared to a carnivorous animal (e.g. tiger, crocodile, or even a dog)... lets just say the similarities are not so prevalent. The fact is, apart from a moral or ethical standpoint, our bodies are not made to eat meat. Our intestines are much too long and our stomach acids much too weak. Our teeth much too flat, and our arteries much too clogged. haha. Meat-eating has brought much chaos into the world. Did you know that slaughterhouses produce the greatest amount of greenhouse gases in the world? More than all of the cars, buses, factories, etc. put together. If in the U.S. alone people ate 9/10 the meat they do now, every single one of the 60 million people who die each year of starvation would be fed by the leftover grain. It is in fact that meat-eating is not a natural activity of man, rational, or moral, but rather an addiction, attachment, and irrational habit that is being kept alive by the lack of self-control and ignorance of the general mass of people.
ReplyDelete... are only allowed to wear skin of a dear that has died already by natural causes. ... ehh!!! number of brahmins on one side and rate at which deers die on the other hand ... u do the math dude ... NOT always do the brahmins get the skin of the dead deer dude ....
ReplyDelete@ macabhay : "... meat-eating is not a natural activity of man" ... dude, it is proved 'scientifically' that our ancestors used to eat meat a lot.In fact, if you've read the book "The Laws of Manu", it is CLEARLY mentioned that 'Meat is indeed the best kind of food'. And what about the canines you've got? Do u think that was for vegetarian food? I'm not saying that man is a carnivorous. He's an omnivorous.
ReplyDeleteRefer to alan's post; he's more or less right about why we feel killing animals (for the sake of eating) is violence).
Now coming to the issue of the 'spirituality' of the gITA. It has been proved (by linguists and archaeologists) that Gita was indeed composed after 500 years after composing of the Mahabharata. Yet, it is mentioned and believed that gita happened during the time of the great war. Don't you still get the bloody picture? Also, it has been proved (again by our linguists) that the version of the Gita that we follow has been modified several times over the history (which, according to me, is used for 'Mass Manipulation' and for creating the control over the common man).
@bongu:
ReplyDeleteyour post defeats itself. # of dead deer is way more than number of actual brahmanas who follow that prescription. Aside from that point... whether the brahmanas follow or not does not invalidate the prescription of Sastra. The instruction is given, yet not always followed.
#2: it doesn't matter what you think of the Gita. (it is not breaking news that the Gita was not "composed" until 500 years after Mahabharat. It was passed on orally and receptively until that time period, when intelligence and memory were too degraded to carry on in that way). All i am saying is that if you disregard Sastra as for "mass manipulation" when it doesnt support your view, and then use Sastra to support your view you are being quite hypocritical.
#3: you are right the Laws of Manu state that animals with no legs are the food for animals with legs. Animals with four legs are food for animals with two legs. The key word is animal. If you want to behave like an animal, then you can follow what the animal does. The animal also eats, sleeps, mates and defends, so if you would like to go along with what the animals do then that is the decision of the individual. That is Pravrtti-Marga(sp?). Animals act and live based on animalistic insticts. However, the human has got a more developed conciousness and intelligence. We must use that intelligence properly, not just to be "high-class animals" eating meat in a restaurant instead of the street.
@macabhay : dude .. it's not a question of how many brahmins actually follow the rule ... the rule is supposed to be universal, meant for every brahmin to follow. let us assume that all the brahmins existing follow that pathetic rule (that states, "one can wear only dead animal's fur") ... it's not practically feasible ... look at the rate at which brahmins come into the society and the rate at which deers leave this fucking world.
ReplyDeleteReply to #2 - "... when intelligence and memory were too degraded to carry on in that way". I agree that writing down the scriptures, vedas, other sacrad books started because the intelligence and memory were degrading. If that's the case, even the gita must've been put down into writing around the time when mahabharata was written down. 25-50 yrs of difference is understandable .. 500 yrs !!! what the hell ??!!
I've also mentioned repeatedly that the gita has been modified over the time. It's not authentic anymore. Who knows, which fucked up dude added what into the gita?
Reply to #3: I agree that human has to develop consciousness and intelligence. It does not mean that there shouldn't be a commonality between the humans and the animals. After all, we are also animals (biologically speaking). What's consciousness got to do with eating animals?