Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Killing for food?
My point:

You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food.
The killing is the greatest sin
You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food. God has given enough vegetable food that contains all the ingredients present in the non-vegetarian food. After all, the source of ingredients of any flesh is only vegetable kingdom only. Eating the non-vegetarian food is not a sin because same ingredients exist in both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods. But, you have to kill a living being for the sake of non-vegetarian food. The killing is the greatest sin.

You may argue that you have not killed the living being directly. Such argument cannot stand. Since you are eating the non-vegetarian food, the living being is killed. You are responsible for its killing. Therefore, you are the principle shareholder of the sin. There is nothing wrong if you eat a living being after its natural death. In Hinduism, there is a sect of people called ‘Kapalikas’, who eat the dead living beings. Therefore, they do not acquire sin. The tsunami is always due to anger of God since you are killing the living beings present in water for food. The earthquakes are due to killing of living beings that exist on the earth. God in the form of Buddha and Mahavir preached the non-violence and severely opposed the killing of living beings.

God in some other human forms might have followed the practice of non-vegetarian food in order to join with non-vegetarian people so that, certain other higher aspects to be preached might have been taken into consideration. That does not mean that God has encouraged the killing of living beings through non-vegetarian food. He might have kept silent on this issue in order to give importance to other serious issues. God follows the ignorance of the students in order to become friendly with them. To control a running bull, you have to run along with it for some distance before controlling it.

All these are the basic concepts of nivrutti, which are the core of pravrutti. By following the ethics of pravrutti, you will avoid God becoming furious with you. Then, through nivrutti, you can please God. On one hand, you are making God furious by not following the ethics of pravrutti and how can you please God through nivrutti simultaneously?

Trees are living creatures too

In the old days if you had to live around barren hot desserts, icelands or on barren mountains where you couldn't grow vegies you had to herd animals to milk them to substitute water and vegetables, and benefit from their meet to stay alive..To this day the rule hasn't changed and perfectly compatible with heavenly divine order..

Berrin wrote:In the old days if you had to live around barren hot desserts, icelands or on barren mountains where you couldn't grow vegies you had to herd animals to milk them to substitute water and vegetables, and benefit from their meet to stay alive..To this day the rule hasn't changed and perfectly compatible with heavenly divine order..

A goat is a pure vegetarian but you are eating that goat also. When you find a human being, who is a murderer, will you kill him directly or hand over him to the court? Assuming that the fish is also a murderer, you cannot kill it directly. God will punish it.

In the case of the fish(Some fish eats some other fish), you need not file a case against the fish in the court of the God, because there is no need of such filing in the case of God. Moreover you are raising your voice against the hanging of a murderer stating, “If you cannot give life, you have no right to take it away”. You are also pleading that hanging is the most barbaric deed and that several countries have banned it. Your statement applies to the fish also, which is a murderer of the creatures. Life is common in the human being as well as the fish. Both are living beings.

If you don’t have right to take away the life of a human being, you have also no right to take the life of the fish also. The Dharma Shastras say that non-voilence is the highest justice (Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah). If you say that the fish kills the creatures for food and that there is no sin, there should not be sin if cornivorous hunters from forest enter the city and start eating the human beings. You should not object their food also, but you will kill them because your fellow human beings are killed. If you broaden your heart and see the fish as your fellow living being, you are practicing the highest form of justice, which pleases the Lord. You cannot compare the plants with animals and birds. Even in the case of plants, the green plants should not be cut.

Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita).

They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee or one lakh rupees from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

As you think, children are not innocent. The child of a demon has the devil characteristics in the form of seeds. The soul in a child has just entered the earth after a long punishment in the hell. The strength of the sinful attitude (Samskara) is very much reduced but did not vanish completely. A thief when released from a police station after a long torture has the attitude of stealing in very much reduced state. The attitude did not disappear.

When he comes out and enters a suitable encouraging atmosphere, this seed grows as a tree and he is caught by the police again for his theft. Similarly when the child grows, again the grown up person does the same sin and at the end goes to the hell. This is the cycle of deeds (Karma Chakra). When a child is taken away by God, it is something like arresting the thief immediately after his release. This prevents the thief to steal again. He must be considered lucky.

The child may get a better birth. The angle of sympathy comes since you are not aware of the soul in the body of the child. The body is like a shirt and the death is only destruction of the shirt. Gita emphasizes about this aspect in the beginning itself. The plans of the Lord are not known to us. He may give a better shirt in a better place and protect the soul. We see a brief part of the film and conclude.
Only complete and thorough spiritual knowledge can remove all the doubts.

A goat is a pure vegetarian but you are eating that goat also.

Of course, its digestive system created only to digest vegies when left alone, out in the open..While human digestive system created to accomadate both source of food as in the case of nomads..

When you find a human being, who is a murderer, will you kill him directly or hand over him to the court?

If I am left alone with a murderer, the chances that I can hand him over to police would be very weak as he would also attempt to kill me, if he attempts to kill, I too would bloody attempt to kill him provided that I have similar weapons to combat..If I am a woman, I would be in double trouble since he would physically be stronger than me..

Assuming that the fish is also a murderer, you cannot kill it directly. God will punish it.

Its pointless to kill an animal once the damage is done, since they have no sense of judgement, humans have enough intelligence to not jerk around wild animals..
You cannot compare status of animals with humans since humans are the greatest of all creation with power of thought to judge and decide what is right or wrong for themselves and others..

Moreover you are raising your voice against the hanging of a murderer stating, “If you cannot give life, you have no right to take it away”. You are also pleading that hanging is the most barbaric deed and that several countries have banned it.

Yes If I cannot give life I cannot take it away as long as my life is not threaten to exist..
All humans know this but despite, some of them continue to become i.e serial killers, there is nothing more barbaric to let them live when they are likely to continue killing..
In the old days we didn't use to have modern prisons or rehabilitation centres...Even this day I wish not to see my taxes getting wasted on say serial killers when there are millions of good people dying from hunger and diseases around the world..

If you don’t have right to take away the life of a human being, you have also no right to take the life of the fish also.

I only can't take the life of the shark, couse I don't live in the sea..But still, I wouldn't take the life of a shark away becouse he is programmed to exit by living on preys, it's humans duty to stay away from their habitation where they are likely to be found..

Sorry but datta I cannot attach myself any of what you are saying if I judge your claims on deeper dimentions..

Berrin wrote:

A goat is a pure vegetarian but you are eating that goat also.

Of course, its digestive system created only to digest vegies when left alone, out in the open..While human digestive system created to accomadate both source of food as in the case of nomads..

When you find a human being, who is a murderer, will you kill him directly or hand over him to the court?

If I am left alone with a murderer, the chances that I can hand him over to police would be very weak as he would also attempt to kill me, if he attempts to kill, I too would bloody attempt to kill him provided that I have similar weapons to combat..If I am a woman, I would be in double trouble since he would physically be stronger than me..

Assuming that the fish is also a murderer, you cannot kill it directly. God will punish it.

Its pointless to kill an animal once the damage is done, since they have no sense of judgement, humans have enough intelligence to not jerk around wild animals..
You cannot compare status of animals with humans since humans are the greatest of all creation with power of thought to judge and decide what is right or wrong for themselves and others..

Moreover you are raising your voice against the hanging of a murderer stating, “If you cannot give life, you have no right to take it away”. You are also pleading that hanging is the most barbaric deed and that several countries have banned it.

Yes If I cannot give life I cannot take it away as long as my life is not threaten to exist..
All humans know this but despite, some of them continue to become i.e serial killers, there is nothing more barbaric to let them live when they are likely to continue killing..
In the old days we didn't use to have modern prisons or rehabilitation centres...Even this day I wish not to see my taxes getting wasted on say serial killers when there are millions of good people dying from hunger and diseases around the world..

If you don’t have right to take away the life of a human being, you have also no right to take the life of the fish also.

I only can't take the life of the shark, couse I don't live in the sea..But still, I wouldn't take the life of a shark away becouse he is programmed to exit by living on preys, it's humans duty to stay away from their habitation where they are likely to be found..

Sorry but datta I cannot attach myself any of what you are saying if I judge your claims on deeper dimentions..

Non-vegetarian food by it self is not a sin since the analysis of it shows that its contents are the same as exist in vegetarian food. The sin comes by killing a co-living being, which does not harm you at all. If you stop taking non-vegetarian food, killing of living beings is proportionally controlled. Do not say that you are not getting sin since you have not killed the living being directly.

Killing is the highest sin, which gives highest pain to the living being. In the next birth, the killed living being will be born as human being, you will be born as the living being and you will be killed similarly by the human being so that your soul will realize the pain and get reformed.

Datta - could you comment on these references I found. Are they authentic?

They quote Hindu scriptures on the subject of eating meat:

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”
Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) writes, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

Also, comments of some great scholars of Hinduism are also worth noting:
· Hinduism’s greatest propagator Swami Vivekanand said thus: “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, vol.3, p. 536).
· Mukandilal writes in his book ‘Cow Slaughter – Horns of a Dilemma’, page 18: “In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (alter).”
· A renowned scholar of scriptures Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)
· Adi Shankaracharya’ commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen.
· The book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay and edited by renowned historian R.C.Majumdar (Vol.2, page 578) says: “this is said in the Mahabharat that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in charity”.

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15 ... 200236.htm

Nuts to religion because I don't believe in any of that garbage! But the human 'animal' has evolved as an omnivore - look at your teeth! The front ones are meant for tearing at flesh, whereas the back ones are designed for crushing and chomping all food materials.

Mines a steak please - bl.o.ody as hell!

Non-vegetarian food by it self is not a sin since the analysis of it shows that its contents are the same as exist in vegetarian food. The sin comes by killing a co-living being, which does not harm you at all. If you stop taking non-vegetarian food, killing of living beings is proportionally controlled. Do not say that you are not getting sin since you have not killed the living being directly.

Killing is the highest sin, which gives highest pain to the living being. In the next birth, the killed living being will be born as human being, you will be born as the living being and you will be killed similarly by the human being so that your soul will realize the pain and get reformed.

I feel there is fundamental failure in your logic or analysis..
Mongolians are no mads, they take their herds wherever they travel on barren mountains where grass is the only form of food, majority of the time at least..
Those herds are found to be co-living beings, along the inhabitants of tents. So do they become sinners if they decide to kill an animal to feed themselves?

In islam killing a co-living edible/halal animal only becomes a sin, if you kill more than you need at a time...i.e wastage, extravagance..

Personally I like this idea, but I can never ever stick to it, first because I like meat! Second I think it is not healthy to eliminate beef, chicken and fish of your diet.

I have this friend, she is very interested in Hindu practices, we visited India together and well I saw there are lots of great diversified vegetarian foods available! We don’t have that diversification in Iran, as our main cuisine is Kebab!

What my friend does is she tries to be vegetarian for like one week in a month. Well that way she can prevent some killing I guess.

Berrin wrote:

Non-vegetarian food by it self is not a sin since the analysis of it shows that its contents are the same as exist in vegetarian food. The sin comes by killing a co-living being, which does not harm you at all. If you stop taking non-vegetarian food, killing of living beings is proportionally controlled. Do not say that you are not getting sin since you have not killed the living being directly.

Killing is the highest sin, which gives highest pain to the living being. In the next birth, the killed living being will be born as human being, you will be born as the living being and you will be killed similarly by the human being so that your soul will realize the pain and get reformed.

I feel there is fundamental failure in your logic or analysis..
Mongolians are no mads, they take their herds wherever they travel on barren mountains where grass is the only form of food, majority of the time at least..
Those herds are found to be co-living beings, along the inhabitants of tents. So do they become sinners if they decide to kill an animal to feed themselves?

In islam killing a co-living edible/halal animal only becomes a sin, if you kill more than you need at a time...i.e wastage, extravagance..

Killing is defintely a sin, should avoid as far as possible...

Killing is defintely a sin, should avoid as far as possible...

Ohh wooow woooww datta that's an improvement, now we should avoid killing as much as possible, so killing is definetly not a sin....Thank you brother you proved us right!... at last....

Berrin wrote:

Killing is defintely a sin, should avoid as far as possible...

Ohh wooow woooww datta that's an improvement, now we should avoid killing as much as possible, so killing is definetly not a sin....Thank you brother you proved us right!... at last....

There are lot of people who are in the habit of killing for eating. SUch people are doing this for long time and are addicted to it. They are like patients who require treatment very urgently. They are like serial killers, who need urgent treatment. If to them if truth is revealed they cannot follow it. Killing is a sin. One should stop abruptly killing for eating, this is the truth. But these people cannot be controlled since they reject truth and mock it also. This is the standard of people!! Therefore such curel hearted people who do not accept truth atleast they can reduce eating meat slowly slowly......till they reach complete, stoppage...

Killing is a sin, right ? Then what do we eat ? Because plants and trees are also living creatures and we are effectively killing them to eat them aswell.

So should we all just die of hunger ? Or eat dead foilage.

Also another point, according to you it should be perfectly fine to eat any animals that have died natuarally, right ? Since we haven't killed them for food.

I mean all this sounds very nice fluffy, green, veggie and eco friendly but isn't at all practical. Also what are your thoughts on consuming eggs, milk, cheese etc etc

Actually it is very practical for societies to eat less meat and adopt more green into their diets.

The amount of grain it would require to directly feed humans would be a fraction of the grain required to feed a bull or poultry animal and then slaughter that animal and feed humans.

Vegetarianism is a very sensible and common sense approach for people in modern societies to consider. And yes, a meat free diet is perfectly healthy - hippies in the sixties proved biologists wrong by showing that it is possible to live a healthy life without meat consumption as before scientists believed meat was needed to supply the body with essential amino acids. It turns out, all of our nutrition can come from plants.

desertdudeshj wrote:Killing is a sin, right ? Then what do we eat ? Because plants and trees are also living creatures and we are effectively killing them to eat them aswell.

So should we all just die of hunger ? Or eat dead foilage.

Also another point, according to you it should be perfectly fine to eat any animals that have died natuarally, right ? Since we haven't killed them for food.

I mean all this sounds very nice fluffy, green, veggie and eco friendly but isn't at all practical. Also what are your thoughts on consuming eggs, milk, cheese etc etc

Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita).

They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee or one lakh rupees from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:54 am --

event horizon wrote:Actually it is very practical for societies to eat less meat and adopt more green into their diets.

The amount of grain it would require to directly feed humans would be a fraction of the grain required to feed a bull or poultry animal and then slaughter that animal and feed humans.

Vegetarianism is a very sensible and common sense approach for people in modern societies to consider. And yes, a meat free diet is perfectly healthy - hippies in the sixties proved biologists wrong by showing that it is possible to live a healthy life without meat consumption as before scientists believed meat was needed to supply the body with essential amino acids. It turns out, all of our nutrition can come from plants.

You are right...

It is possible to go without s.ex and remain celibate for one's whole life - it is also possible to survive on just one meal a day (and indeed, there are biological arguments that both these extreme activities can have positive health benefits). On the spiritual side, reducing food intake and remaining celibate for the period of meditation/contemplation, does have positive effects and concentrates the mind.

HOWEVER, God/Nature/Evolution designed human beings to eat meat. The natural desire to eat meat also has positive benefits - protein and nutrients in meat are beneficial to man. Most things taken to excess are bad - water is a poison if too much is drunk, for example. Meat therefore should be judged on its merits, not when taken to excess.

So, whilst it is possible to live a vegetarian lifestyle and cut out meat completely - it still remains a choice that needs to be explained.

Invoking scripture to advocate vegetarianism raises the questions I've posed above which still remain unanswered:

Why does early Hindu scripture say that eating beef is not only ok, but is recommended?

When and who finally banned the eating of meat in general and beef in particular? What changed in the periods when Brahmins were eating beef and when they stopped?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
HOWEVER, God/Nature/Evolution designed human beings to eat meat. The natural desire to eat meat also has positive benefits - protein and nutrients in meat are beneficial to man. Most things taken to excess are bad - water is a poison if too much is drunk, for example. Meat therefore should be judged on its merits, not when taken to excess.

That is your version, if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

All the punishments are only for reformation of the soul and not for revenge. The hell is created by God not with vengeance against sinners but due to kindness to reform the souls. God is always kind to reform the souls, which are His children since the souls are created by Him.

The father will never have even a trace of vengeance towards his issues. Jesus always addressed God as father and He propagated this concept by saying that all your sins will be excused by God if you are reformed. Practical knowledge, the practical realization, which is the reformation, will cancel all your previous bad deeds or sins as told in Gita (Jnanaagnih….). Except this one way, there is no other way to cancel the sins and escape from all the present problems in the world and future torture in the hell.

I'd like to ask then what you'd expect people like Eskimos to eat? When they live in a place where virtually nothing vegetable like grows? Their diet is pretty much 99% meat! But they do however, use virtually the entire animal, skins for clothing and bettin, bones for other things etc etc.

Also your comment that crops are harvested after the plant has died is completely incorrect - clearly you've never ever been anywhere near a farm!

Please stop talking such utter rubbish!

Datta - you haven't addressed the fact that Hindu scripture talks of animal sacrifices (along the lines of Judaism and Islam) - where the flesh is eaten. Indeed, Brahmins are recorded to have recommended beef for certain ailments.

Just repeating your current belief that 'it is a sin' etc is not shedding any light.

And not addressing the scriptural references I gave and not addressing the simple question: when did Hindu priests actually stop eating beef and advocate vegetarianism shows you in a bad light.

Logic is failing you, biology is failing you and you haven't produced any reply to the scriptural references produced.

Also, as Chocs pointed out, plant material is very much alive. Yeast in bread (for example) or yoghurt cultures are live cultures which die in the process of making the food, and many are killed in our systems when we eat.

Cheers,
Shafique

As much as I know (my friend talks abt it), the reason for being vegetarian is not only abt preventing the killing of the alive creatures, but also it is to prevent them from suffering the pain. In their scriptures Cow would suffer the most pain when dying and that s why it is worst to kill, but birds suffer less pain and after birds come sea species! So killing bacterias in milk is really not an issue here!

^That is logical Mel.

However, note that Datta said specifically:

dattaswami wrote:.., if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

But I do agree with datta on the point that any argument should be able 'withstand powerful logic and analysis' - hence why I'd expect him to welcome the requests to explain why historical records show that Hindus not only ate beef, but Brahmins (priestly class) recommended it for certain ailments.

At some time, the teachings changed - it appears.

I'm asking for the 'powerful logic and analysis' that can explain this.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:^That is logical Mel.

However, note that Datta said specifically:

dattaswami wrote:.., if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

But I do agree with datta on the point that any argument should be able 'withstand powerful logic and analysis' - hence why I'd expect him to welcome the requests to explain why historical records show that Hindus not only ate beef, but Brahmins (priestly class) recommended it for certain ailments.

At some time, the teachings changed - it appears.

I'm asking for the 'powerful logic and analysis' that can explain this.

Cheers,
Shafique

If any body recommended eating meat, ceratiainly he will be punished also those who followed him also punished. There were people who also abstined from eating meat, if you say some also eat. Therefore there were people who did not kill the animlas for flesh, and as per you, some people killed for eating, even though they are Hindus. Those who killed for eating will be punished by God.

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:42 pm --

shafique wrote:DYeast in bread (for example) or yoghurt cultures are live cultures which die in the process of making the food, and many are killed in our systems when we eat.

Cheers,
Shafique

I will give an example..
Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain.

The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita).

They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee (1$)or one lakh rupees(1M$) from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

Datta - with respect, you are still avoiding the simple question:

When and who changed the instructions found in Hindu Scriptures in regards eating beef?

You seem to be saying that the earlier scriptures are wrong when they say eating beef is ok, and recommended.

I understood that a lettuce leaf is still 'alive' when eaten. I also understand that bacteria are killed in fermentation processes that make bread and yoghurt - i.e. living organisms are killed for food.

Cheers,
Shafique

dattaswami wrote:In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal

So once again both are a sin, what do we do just die of starvation. What about nature if the circle of life and if killing for food was such a big sin and was meant to carry out in a vegetarian way why would there be carnivores in nature, there are also carnivourous plants circa the venus flytrap.

Killing a plant or breaking one of its limbs ( plucking fruits or leaves ) is a sin but a sin your willing to live with ? Or its ok to kill them because they feel no pain or no consciousness, self aware if you may.

So according to your logic killing a baby is less of a sin/crime then killing a fully grown self aware man. Because although babies can feel pain but they are not self aware. Almost similar to a plant.

Also do you then agree with the Jain perspective of not eating any fruits or vegtables that grow underground like potatoes and carrots because they believe you are disturbing the and there are many tiny creatures ( Ants, worms etc etc ) that benefit from these plants and once uprooted they distrubed, displaced or even killed.

Also I am also very intrested in your scriptures which say its perfectly alright to eat meat a question you have been trying to dodge since the onset, also looking at nature why do humans have a teethset meant for both a veg and non veg diet if god wanted man to just be veg.

There is just way too much in your arguments with is totaly self condradictary.

desertdudeshj wrote:

dattaswami wrote:So according to your logic killing a baby is less of a sin/crime then killing a fully grown self aware man. Because although babies can feel pain but they are not self aware. Almost similar to a plant.

You know a child is going to be grown to a full grown man. The human life is very very important. In the human birth alone one can do service to God and practically please Him. A soul is the part of creation. Veda says that the world is created for the entertainment of God only. Therefore, every soul should realize that its existence and life are for the pleasure of God only and not for the pleasure of one’s own self or his family.

There fore killing human beings is not at all justified..

And what about all the rest ?

Or is thats the only point you had an answer for ?

shafique wrote:Datta - with respect, you are still avoiding the simple question:

When and who changed the instructions found in Hindu Scriptures in regards eating beef?

You seem to be saying that the earlier scriptures are wrong when they say eating beef is ok, and recommended.

I understood that a lettuce leaf is still 'alive' when eaten. I also understand that bacteria are killed in fermentation processes that make bread and yoghurt - i.e. living organisms are killed for food.

Cheers,
Shafique

Growth is not a characteristic of life. A crystal grows in a solution. Nail grows. Life and respiration is also there in a plant. You will say that we will give some injection to the animal so that it will not feel pain during killing. This you do it by force. If you do not give injection and kill, the animals can have full expression of life and lead an enjoying life; that you are opposing. The dormant nature of conciousness already exists by itself. Suppose you donot give injection; it can entertain and enjoy its life.

In the case of plant, God has already given the injection to it. It is an arrangement made by God. However, in case of killing animal, God has not made such arrangements. Eating non-vegetarian food is not at all a sin, because if you analyse, once it is killed it not a sin. It is killed beause you eat non-vegetarian food. Sin will come only for the killing. After it is killed, it becomes as good as an inert body. Eating flesh is not a sin. But, the animal is killed to eat the flesh. In Hindu religion, there is a set of people called as Bhairava religion. They eat dead bodies. Is it not a sin? No. They have not killed. It is not a sin because there no is killing involved. The dead body is as good as a chapatti. Eating flesh is not a sin. Killing the living being to eat flesh is the sin.

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:So once again both are a sin, what do we do just die of starvation. What about nature if the circle of life and if killing for food was such a big sin and was meant to carry out in a vegetarian way why would there be carnivores in nature, there are also carnivourous plants circa the venus flytrap.
.

Consider the case of a tiger killing a deer. To kill an innocent beautiful deer is the greatest sin and the birth of the tiger itself is the result of the soul’s bad deeds in the past. Just like the color and the cotton thread cannot be separated the cruel nature of the soul in the tiger is inherent and inseparable. Therefore it looks for you as if it is a natural thing when it kills the deer. You cannot say that a carnivorous person who kills and eats the human beings is justified because you are affected.

You can understand the pain of the deer when you are born as a deer. The deer cannot argue like a human being. But because of that it should not have a different justice. One person may be unable to employ an advocate but the judge will do the justice. A tiger will be doing such sins continuously which will increase its cruelty. As the cruelty increases, the cruel deeds become more and more. The quality leads to action and the action again results in quality. This is the vicious circle in which the soul is caught, that is the end of the story and there is no liberation for such soul who is in the body of tiger.

datta, you said that any theory must be able to stand the test of logic. I agree with you on this point.

Thank you for clarifying that your belief is that EATING flesh is not a sin, but it is the act of killing the animal that is a sin.

However, I draw your attention to the Hindu scriptures quoted before - and particularly to the references which relate to KILLING a cow:

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
...

Can you reconcile these instructions with your current belief - and I ask once again, when and who changed these instructions to 'no killing'?

Cheers,
Shafique