[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Hindu diet: Someone please explain
-
Subject: Re: Hindu diet: Someone please explain
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: 13 Dec 1995 02:00:35 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 721 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu> wrote
>In article <4a5jh6$9u9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>Meat and eggs are Tamasik, please see the description of tamasic foods in
>the Bhagavad Gita for this. Meat is decomposing, tasteless, leads to
>distress, etc.
**
Well, It doesn't specifically mention meat and eggs. Meat kept in deep freeze
does not decompose not atleast in 2 or 3 days. I thought the properties of
refrigerators were well known in the civilized world, but apparently not.
I would suppose that it's not tasteless either. Eggs too neither rot nor are
tasteless. So how about freshly laid eggs and meat from animals killed within 3
hours? What's your expert opinion on this?
**
>>>That is very interesting. I myself NEED poultry for my metabolism,
>
>I highly doubt this.
**
The gentleman who thinks he NEEDS poultry for his metabolism seems to have
experimented with food. He specifically stated he could do very well without
red meat, but needs poultry and milk. I would think he knows about his own
metabolism better, especially since he's experimented. I don't see how you could
"highly doubt this". Tarot cards, perhaps?
**
>>If I may offer a suggestion, you need not be overly concerned about food.
>>One can profitably spend all that energy on some form of meditation.
>
>Rajasik & tamasik "energy" would indeed be difficult to engage in meditation
>since they agitate the mind & senses and lead to laziness & delusion
>respectively.
**
One can engage in spiritual activity even when Rajasic, I admit it's EASIER
when the mind is Saatvic.
**
>
>>Vegetarianism was not considered an absolute must, atleast in the Rigveda and
>>Puranas.
>
>However, note that the Rg also _extremely_ regulates any legitimate meat-eating
>There are certain astrological times (new moon only), certain conditions,
>certain animals, etc that can be sacrificed in a prescribed way. Also, part of
>the ceremony requires the sacrificer to acknowledge that he stands to be
>sacrificed the same way in a future life.
**
In case you don't know, the Vedas and Smrithis also regulate any food intake,
sleep, procreation etc. All these regulations are niyamas. So the Rig-Veda
regulating meat intake is NOTHING surprising. Another case of selective interp-
retation of the Vedas by the ISKONites. One can be reborn as an animal EVEN if
one is vegetarian and hence stand the risk of being sacrificed. Read Jada
Baratha's story for example.
**
>As a side note, only certain Puranas (the ones described as Rajasik and
>Tamasik) allow meat eating. The topmost Purana, the Bhaagavata first of all
>says that animal-killers will never become attracted to Hari katha. Then,
**
Sure thing. I wonder how Lord Krishna asked the Pandavas to perform the
Ashwamedha Yagna. It definitely involves the killing of animals. Let me quote
from the Taittriya Samhita section of the Krishna Yajur Veda. It gives a
detailed description of the horse sacrifice. The 5th Kanda gives detailed
descriptions of the particular animals for particular Gods.
V. 6. 14
"The humped, the bull, the dwarf (animal), these are for Indra and Varuna, the
one with white hump, the white backed, the white rumped, these are for Indra
and Brihaspati, the white footed, the white lipped, the white browed, these are
for Indra and Vishnu, the three white flecked barren cows are for Vishwakarman,
the three with piebald bellies are for Dhatr, the white spotted hornless ones
are for Indra and Pusan."
I have given the exact section numbers so that doubting Thomases can consult
the original. Note that animal sacrifices are indeed done for Vishnu in the
Vedas. If any one is interested I'll post the whole section (which gives what
is to be offered to Rudra also)
Perhaps Lord Krishna won't be attracted to Harikatha either :-). Neither I
guess will Lord Rama, since he performed the Ashwameda Yagna himself.
**
>Bhrigu Muni gives a long polemic in the Fourth Canto of the Bhagavatam
>against the Shaivites, in which the followers of that school are described
>as hypocrites and atheists, largely because they eat meat and drink liquor
>and other intoxicants.
**
Possibly against the Shaivites who practice such things. Perhaps you have
heard of the Shaivite saints of Tamil Nadu. They decry such practices too. And
so does Lord Shiva himself in the Skanda Purana, where he says contemplation on
him devoid of attributes is the highest form of meditation and the rest are for
people of lesser intellect.
And again the Puranas have lesser validity than the Vedas. When the Yajur Veda
itself sanctions animal sacrifices, I can see no higher authority. The Vedas
are supposedly from the Lord himself (anaadi), wheras the rest are man made.
As a side-note the same Veda contains the Narayana Suktha, one of the most
profound pieces I have read. It contains a description of Lord Narayana as the
supreme truth. Maybe I'll post a translation some time.
**
>>Even in the Ramayana, Rama is described as eating meat.
>
>Strictly not true, at least for the Valmiki Ramayana, which is the most
>authoritative one currently available.
**
I shall check on this. I read it in a translation of the V-Ramayana, but it's
back in India. I'll have to ask my father to search for the book and it'll
probably take some time. But, since you seem very confident I'll search and try
to get the exact verse so that there is no room for confusion.
Possibly this post will bring some posts about "Tamasic portions of the Vedas".
I'm eagerly waiting :-).
Ramakrishnan.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
