Nor did I imply that meat does the same or give one an advantage. I merely said that meat contains very beneficial brain nutrients is all.
But meat contains B12 a nutrient completely necessary for healthy brain development and a deficiency in such a nutrient can actively damage the brain irreparably. How can meat harm our mind if it literally makes the brain stronger?
Carnosine is necessary for human health and is literally only found in the flesh.
and meat (and many currently considered vegetarian food) irreparably corrupt the mind making it incapable of even simple dhyāna while weakening all the nāḍis of the body. So, fwiw, for those seeking adhyātmika progress,
So the primary context i was speaking with regard to was the adhyātmika progress.
True. This is also true of people with meat in their diet. Correlation is wonderful, but I don't know if I'd call it causation without a bit more information.
Ehh, everyone says this of their own religious/science crossover. People say this of the Bible, the Torah and practically any other Holy work you can think of. I think there's truth in the scriptures and other holy practices. But I'm not well versed in Vaidika wisdom, so I really can't say one way or the other until I search for more information.
Irrespective of whether it is causation/correlation and whether one grasps it or not, the Vedas and allied scriptures are clear about prescriptive regulations on food, and for
adhyātmika progress vegetarianism is mandated - now adhyātmika progress is impossible without a strong and fully developed intellect (at least not in vaidika tradition based on mīmāṅsa, though the words rhymes with mānsa/meat). Many ancient practices may indeed contain wisdom in them. I can say that about Zoroastrianism (many parts in it are directly from the vedas) but not sure about the rest (mainly because i have neither studied nor practiced any of them). The Vedas don't require you to take a leap of faith and you will not find 'information' as such in them. They constitute wisdom beheld by the ancient ṛṣis and is fully open source - whoever is capable enough to
imbibe and practice their methods shall arrive at the same Truth. The point i'm trying to make is this: many food may well be very nutritious, but that is not the sole parameter for judging their pathya or apathya, the criteria is based on their qualitative effect on the antaḥkaraṇas. Chicken (for example), with or without skin hampers adhyātmika progress; the causation and nutritional considerations, like i said earlier, have been discussed in ayurveda. Some apathya items (from adhyātmika point of view) too are recommended as medicines - not as food. For instance, garlic has amazing medicinal properties, but is not good for adhyātmika purposes.
Ofcourse those who meat are likely more tamasic and their manas will also be attracted to tamasic devathas some with anger like Rudra/Kali and tamasic foods also aid in tamasic qualities.
I'm assuming you meant tamasika forms of these devathas, else one cannot account for Kṛṣṇa's own direction to his Yoga Māyā - Nandini - that people in the future shall worship her, and being His personal power, she cannot be tamasika.
But if the Vedas say you shouldn't do it (and the Vedas is what makes a Hindu a Hindu so in that regards there is no the that Hinduism is 'varying beliefs' ) why did they do it in the first place?
1. Not all Hindus are Vaidikas (those who follow Vedas); 2. Even amongst Vadikas, you have different schools of thought - the literalist-ritualist, the vedāntins, smārtas, and various combinations of these; 3. There are also pure tāntrikas who don't necessarily accept Vedas, but are quite influential within Hinduism.
I've discussed this in detail already, yet, several veda prescriptions taken literally
appear to endorse animal sacrifice. There will always be people who will find different ways of justifying their actions of satisfying their tongue - some claiming nutritional value yet others claiming support in the lexical reading of the vedas, yet others - relatively honest kind - conceding it is merely to satisfy their tongue.
I read Buddhism's absorption by Hinduism was where the concept of Ahimsa came from and the Vedas said certain castes can eat meat (but they were unclear regarding sacrifice). I also read the Aryans were the ones who introduced animal sacrifice.
"Absorption" may not be the right term, i think, because afaik, Buddha never claimed to have started a different religion. The various Buddhist schools that exist have different versions of Buddhism, but with doctrines that may well have been conceptualized by followers of Buddha rather than Buddha Himself. Jainas who existed before Buddhism too give utmost importance to ahimsa, so do itihāsas (historical accounts like Rāmāyaṇa & Bhārata) and purāṇas - composed before emergence of jainism - that are based on the Vedas. Indeed, pure vegan/vegetarianism was mandatory for brāhmaṇas, recommended for kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, optional for śūdras. Even in the literalist/ritualist schools brāhmaṇas never accepted meat, kṣatriyas did but on rare occasions, rarer was the practice amongst vaiśyas.
Aryan thing is a different story. Aryan invasion/migration theorists hold that Vedas were introduced by them. Since invasion theory has died its natural death, and migration theory posits migration in small numbers over an extended period of time, it is merely a figment of imagination that such small migrations replaced existing culture in its entirety enforcing its own views. Still, i think its a separate discussion (rather a debate), since there is no conclusive evidence on this and even within unbiased scientific community there are multiple theories.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
