Why I don’t eat meat?

[Nosuperstition]

Since eating meat involves violent death of the animal,it is considered unrighteous and Hinduism seemed to have copied this principle.

Hinduism is older than Buddhism.

Therefore, if indeed any "copying" happened, it was the other way round.

Hinduism considers ahimsa(non-violence) one of dharmic acts or righteous actions.Buddhism considers ahimsa as highest righteousness.Therein lies the difference.So even if Buddhism copied the idea from Hinduism,it took the idea to perfection. Now Buddhist monastic orders completely abstained from eating meat and it is believed that Hindu clergy had no other option but to follow the suit.

[Yohan]

^^ Not eating Onions, Garlic, certain root vegetables and so on, are rooted on the principle that they carry life, and practised in orthodox Jainism and Buddhism, which were then borrowed by Hinduism. Later certain fanciful explanations were developed.

Isn't Hinduism older than the other two? Or where these ideas thing that developed later in Hinduism, as a response to meeting other traditions?

One cannot be that sensitive and be strong at the same time.

Well, it depends what you call "strong"...

Hinduism (not the current one as practised), is older but limited to certain pockets in Northern India. That Hinduism didn't have have vegetarianism. Even the Hindu Brahmin priests were meat eaters, including beef. Both Buddhism and jainism introduced the principle of not-killing other living things. Hinduism copied it.

If one doesn't have the will to kill a chicken for dinner, how can one have the will to kill one's enemies in a battle?

[Nosuperstition]

Both Buddhism and jainism introduced the principle of not-killing other living things.

The concept was there in Hindu Upanishad texts that predate Buddhism and Jainism.However animal sacrifices were still in vogue in Hindu rituals as ahimsa or non-violence is just one aspect of righteousness and rituals were aimed at pleasing gods with animal sacrifices.Buddhism and Jainism banned animal sacrifices in rituals.However the same Buddhism when in China did not result in such extreme forms of veganism. The Chinese proudly say that the form of Buddhism practiced in China is a tougher one as compared with the meek one that was once existent in the sub-continent.

If one doesn't have the will to kill a chicken for dinner, how can one have the will to kill one's enemies in a battle?

No wonder kings of sub-continent all converted to Hinduism just before the invasions of Islam possibly because they wanted a tougher religion in place of a meeker one.Now that also brings into question the fact that all wars of conquest are nothing but killing off your enemies for dinner.There is no difference between killing a chicken for dinner and killing your enemies to get hold of their productive land.Only that people do it in the name of civilising the other party with a better religion etc.

[Nosuperstition]

the real answer is because you live on the place that rich in plant-based food choices! :lol2:

Yes that appears true when you consider that Buddhism and Jainism ,the religions that emphasised more on non-violence have been born in the fertile tropico-temperate plains of perennial rivers of the Himalayas in North India.

It is said that of the four Vedas,the earliest and most archaic Rig Veda is composed outside the sub-continent possibly in harsh climate of Central Asia.Hence Hinduism did not have such emphasis on avoiding non-vegan food in its initial stages.

But living in a place rich in plant-based food choices does not mean you always have plenty of options.For those who have to perform physically demanding tasks,eating meat is a necessity.

[Nosuperstition]

the real answer is because you live on the place that rich in plant-based food choices! :lol2:

You nailed it.Even in climates with rich plant based food choices,how can people say that those who consume non-veg are inferior human beings when they themselves are not prepared to part with relatively high amounts of money they have with the help of which they always try to make up for the loss of nutrition from meat?I never consider someone consuming non-veg as inferior to someone consuming veg.

[Nosuperstition]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3M2mEEo-m8

Due to global warming , desertification will intensify and not many in future can afford the luxury of living only on veggie diet and bragging about it.

[manfred]

NS, why would that be something to "brag" about? Surely we can decide on what we want to eat? And if you don't like what someone else eats, why would it bother you?

Now, as you mention the far distant future, I can actually see things going a different way: As the population grows keeping animals for food will become more and more uneconomical. Think about it. You feed an animal like a chicken grain, for many months, possibly years. Then you kill it and you have one good meal for your family. But for how long could you feed yourself with all that grain the chicken has eaten?

I think the future will be that our food will become more and more plant based, with protein supplied by soya beans and products from that, such as tofu. It will not be a any ideological move, but a simple economic decision. We will move away from growing crops to feed animals, and instead use the land to feed ourselves. Meat will not disappear, but it will become more of an occasional "treat" rather than a regular thing on the menu.

[Fernando]

You've pointed to the real question, Manfred: population.
It's the growth of population that will make a omnivorous diet unsustainable. I was horrified to hear on the World Service that the in the country in Africa which has the world's fasted growing population (I didn't catch which it is), women are still having six to eight children each. Partly, apparently, because religious leaders are against providing contraecption to young women, even though they are married!
At that rate, they're not going to be able to sustain a vegetarian diet, never mind an omnivorous one.

[Nosuperstition]

At that rate, they're not going to be able to sustain a vegetarian diet, never mind an omnivorous one.

And yet they call me a demoness when all that I said was to safeguard the mother's life first and not the baby's.

[Nosuperstition]

NS, why would that be something to "brag" about? Surely we can decide on what we want to eat? And if you don't like what someone else eats, why would it bother you?

Well I have come across quite a number of Brahmins right from my childhood who lectured me about how it is cruel to eat slain animals and asked me to give up the habit.That appeared like suggesting moral superiority/bragging to me.Back then I had nothing to say to them when they described how gruesomely the animal is killed.Today I have my defense.If a human life is more valuable than that of any animal as had been suggested by none other than Adi Sankaracharya himself,how can you prevent contemporary humans from flesh consumption as they are sustained in greater number due to consumption of animal diets.Simple.

[manfred]

NS, you are reading things into that. Someone expresses an opinion to you which you appear to perceive as a threat.

[Nosuperstition]

NS, you are reading things into that. Someone expresses an opinion to you which you appear to perceive as a threat.

A person has to be a vegetarian by birth if he is to qualify for the post of temple priest in modern day Hinduism.Ritual purity plays such an important role in the religious culture of Hindus.I never perceived that as a threat until I came to this very forum and read an article by Ambedkar posted from countercurrents site by our idesigner1 or crazy canuck of the old forum when he said that the moral superiority of Brahmins in Hindu society springs from the Brahmin's abstention from meat.

[manfred]

A Brahmin is only "morally superior" to you if you allow him to be. If you do not believe that a Brahim has special rights by virtue of his diet, then he has no power over you, he is just like any other man.

Ritual purity is a curious concept, and often it serves to separate people for one reason or another. What would a Brahmin be if any Hindu could carry the tasks of a priest? He would not only loose his privileges and status, but also his income. So, much is made of a Brahmin being different, special, so that his status is preserved. His diet is a part of that. It is a visible sign for his claim of special status.

Generally a vegetarian does not make such a claim, and simply adopts a "live and let live" approach. My nephew is a vegetarian, his live-in girlfriend is not. They simply eat different food.

[Nosuperstition]

My nephew is a vegetarian, his live-in girlfriend is not. They simply eat different food.

Interesting. Yohan did say that Hindus were far more successful perhaps with regards to conquests when they were non-vegetarians/when they did not stress much about veggism.So I assume that this guy is not more successful than his girlfriend.

[Nosuperstition]

But a soft-bodied Brahmin could not have endured so much pain.

http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatpersonalities/karna/page4.htm

After taking up veggism,you naturally lose your stamina to compete , be it is either in wars or in academics.I have known about Brahmins bemoaning the advent of meat eating cum economically sound Sacchudra caste people overtaking them in academics due to meat consumption.Also according to HPyroli from her anthropological conclusions,the chance of veggies falling prey to hallucinations is more.May be even meat eaters of not so good economic backgrounds will fall prey to hallucinations if they are undernourished and consume costly meat not so often .However both these things are mitigated to a certain extent when milk,iron rich foods etc are consumed a lot by those with economic prowess.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17820&p=235120#p235120

That is the reason why the incident of Parashuram's Brahmins annihilating Kshatriya males or the meat eating warrior class males of Hinduism could have happened only before the influence of Buddhism and Jainism.

[Nosuperstition]

He would kill the goat and cook the meat. It was fed to the guest. The innocent sages used to eat it. Then after the meal llvala would shout, "Vatapi, come out." Then Vatapi who was in the stomach of the guest would tear it open and come out. The ascetic who came as a guest would in a minute become the guest of the god of Death.

Agasthya happily finished his meal.

Even today ‘Vatapi, be digested’ has become a proverb reminding people of Agasthya’s might

jeernam jeernam Vaataapi jeernam those are exact Sanskrit words.
.
http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/sages/agasthya/page6.htm

See as of today ascetics lecture Hindu commoners about the good of veggism after practicing it first.They even take a dig at Shirdi Sai Baba for having cooked and eaten non-veg meals for himself and for his Muslim followers.But then that Brahmins ate meat in the times of Agastya is self evident from the above popular story. Sage Agastya is said to have come to the south of the Vindhyas along with his wife Lopamudra(a princess by birth).Now that might mean it could have happened after the conquest of almost all of South India by the Maurya dynasty around 300 B.C.Now the so called demon kings described by Hinduism fell prey to Mahaa Moha Maaya(great desirous illusion or the great lusty illusion) of Buddha and adopted Buddhism per Hindu texts themselves as was cited in the old old forum.So they patronised veggie advocating Buddhists and as a result Brahmins had to follow the suit post 300 B.C.

Also Brahmin Agastya's marriage to Kshatriya princess Lopamudra shows that Varna Sankaram or mixing of colors or castes or classes was not that great a sin back then.