Hindus and beef

[Aupmanyav]

21. He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species 1!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin 2;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.' - Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:2:21
Yajnavalkya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Good thing I can't read.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I'm not too entirely sure what conversation you're trying to start?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Eating beef. Just came across this. Shatapatha Brahmana is part of Shukla YajurVeda and some ascribe it to around 2,200 BC.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Eating beef. Just came across this. Shatapatha Brahmana is part of Shukla YajurVeda and some ascribe it to around 2,200 BC.

Ah, of course!

I got that it was about eating beef, but I didn't know if it was meant to spark a deep discussion about the ethics thereof, or to show scriptural basis for not eating beef.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

21. He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species 1!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin 2;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.' - Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:2:21
Yajnavalkya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom of what we eat, if one eats beef then its up to them, if one does not then it is their choice, was Yâgñavalkya sent to Hell for eating beef?
I respect him for adhering to the separation of Smriti/Shruti literature concerning the YajurVeda, and in the first Mantra of the Sukla Yajur Veda there is a request that "our Cows may not be harmed", so i think there is more to the story and i think we must understand the principal of Ahimsa more clearly to determine the lifestyle of our great rishis which somewhat seems contradictory to today's Hinduism.

 

[Chakra]

21. He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species 1!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin 2;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.' - Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:2:21
Yajnavalkya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's funny how to talk about this section of the Shatapatha Brahmana while you ignore what the rest of the Brahmana has to say.

Anyway, this passage is an interesting one. Yajnavalkya says that he does eat beef (which doesn't mean that he slaughtered any cows for it, the cow could have just died from old age), but the thing is, just because he does it, that doesn't mean we should do it to. Who are we to mimic the actions of an ancient Rishi? If everyone started eating beef right this moment, then everything would go wrong.

Another thing to note is that the some portions of the Brahmana are metaphorical, similar to the "Purusha being sacrificed" section in other Vedic texts. The Purusha wasn't actually sacrificed, but the Vedas still use that word.

Regards

 

[Chakra]

Thanks for the input, Poeticus. Could you elaborate more on what you said in your last sentence?

 

[George-ananda]

21. He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species 1!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin 2;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.' - Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:2:21
Yajnavalkya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient scripture always sound awkward and odd to me. My understandings come from modern masters who explain things in modern ways with intelligent reasons for the teachings.

That said, I'm a vegetarian (although I would love to be a meat eater from my palate's point of view) because of the logical application of ahimsa (non-violence). It would be wrong to slaughter animals that can feel stress, abuse, fear and pain (especially since the meat that would be available to me comes from factory farms) since it has been shown that we can be just as healthy or healthier eating a smart vegetarian diet. The only reason for eating meat then is pleasing my palate. And to add it's a more earth-sustainable practice.

So my point is; I don't eat beef based on the scripture quoted above but because I have been showed logical reasons why I should not consume meat.

 

[von bek]

I think I'm allowed to post in this thread since it is not the Hindu DIR, if it's not okay, send the inquisitors to my house.

I don't exactly have a comment, but a question. I understand the injunction against slaughtering animals for food. By understand, I mean that it is a straightforward idea, do not kill. But, if a cow were to be struck dead by lightning, would it be okay to eat that flesh? No human took the life of the cow. What I am driving at is, is the offense the taking of life or is it in the actual consumption of meat, regardless of how the animal died?

Again, I ask this in sincerity. No mocking here.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think I'm allowed to post in this thread since it is not the Hindu DIR, if it's not okay, send the inquisitors to my house.

I don't exactly have a comment, but a question. I understand the injunction against slaughtering animals for food. By understand, I mean that it is a straightforward idea, do not kill. But, if a cow were to be struck dead by lightning, would it be okay to eat that flesh? No human took the life of the cow. What I am driving at is, is the offense the taking of life or is it in the actual consumption of meat, regardless of how the animal died?

Again, I ask this in sincerity. No mocking here.

It's the consumption of meat, Von Bek.

 

[von bek]

It's the consumption of meat, Von Bek.

:namaste

Thank you for answering me.

 

[George-ananda]

I think I'm allowed to post in this thread since it is not the Hindu DIR, if it's not okay, send the inquisitors to my house.

I don't exactly have a comment, but a question. I understand the injunction against slaughtering animals for food. By understand, I mean that it is a straightforward idea, do not kill. But, if a cow were to be struck dead by lightning, would it be okay to eat that flesh? No human took the life of the cow. What I am driving at is, is the offense the taking of life or is it in the actual consumption of meat, regardless of how the animal died?

Again, I ask this in sincerity. No mocking here.

I understand your logic here von bek. I think one can make an argument that there is no harm in eating meat accidentally freshly killed. I'll go one step further and let you know that I, as a vegetarian, will eat meat that is destined for the garbage can. For example, if my co-worker says, does anyone want this last piece of (pepperoni) pizza before I throw it away; I'll say 'Yes' and inhale it like a starved wolf.

Now stricter Hindus might argue that meat increases rajasic (aggressive mind) tendencies and should be avoided. This is another reason for vegetarianism. Now there are some who include onions, garlic, caffeine, etc. as to be avoided. Some will not even accept food from an unknown preparer of food as an evil person's vibrations will negatively effect the food and eater. I actually believe there is basis to these beliefs but I don't choose to be that strict; I've gotten plenty of things to clear up before I worry about those things. But purchasing meat I do avoid as I can clearly see the violent connection.

This of course is just my opinion. I'm concerned with the killing not the eating (and 99% of the time they are the same thing but 1% of the time I get lucky).

 

[von bek]

I understand your logic here von bek. I think one can make an argument that there is no harm in eating meat accidentally freshly killed. I'll go one step further and let you know that I, as a vegetarian, will eat meat that is destined for the garbage can. For example, if my co-worker says, does anyone want this last piece of (pepperoni) pizza before I throw it away; I'll say 'Yes' and inhale it like a starved wolf.

Now stricter Hindus might argue that meat increases rajasic (aggressive mind) tendencies and should be avoided. This is another reason for vegetarianism. Now there are some who include onions, garlic, caffeine, as to be avoided. Some will not even accept food from an unknown preparer of food as an evil person's vibrations will negatively effect the food and eater. I actually believe there is basis to these beliefs but I don't choose to be that strict; I've gotten plenty of things to clear up before I worry about those things. But purchasing meat I do avoid as I can clearly see the violent connection.

This of course is just my opinion. I'm concerned with the killing not the eating (and 99% of the time they are the same thing but 1% of the time I get lucky).

Thank you for your answer. One of the reasons I am curious is because vegetarianism is not a requirement in Theravada Buddhism, even for monks. (With a few exceptions, such as human flesh...) The reasoning being that in Buddhism, the mind is key and not the body. Karma is created by mental intention. So, slaughtering an animal is wrong because of the intent generated towards taking a life. Walking into a restaurant and eating a hamburger is perfectly fine as no intent is formed to take a life. Eating dead flesh is not the same act as taking a life. Different intentions guide each of those actions. Properly speaking, the only intent that should precipitate eating anything is the mere intention to provide nutrients to your body and satisfy hunger. If you are eating merely to experience a taste you like, you are eating with Wrong Intent.

Other Buddhist traditions have a position much closer to what Vinakaya expressed earlier, eating meat in of itself is problematic and to be avoided. I am interested in how different Dharmic traditions have approached the issue of vegetarianism. Little surprise to find a variety of opinions ranging from, "No, never is it allowed," to "Sure, it's all good!"

 

[Chakra]

It isn't allowed, according to the scriptures. Some of the more orthodox Vaishnava and Shaiva schools are vegetarian. In fact, some schools require that you be a vegetarian.

 

[von bek]

Now there are some who include onions, garlic, caffeine, etc. as to be avoided. Some will not even accept food from an unknown preparer of food as an evil person's vibrations will negatively effect the food and eater. I actually believe there is basis to these beliefs but I don't choose to be that strict; I've gotten plenty of things to clear up before I worry about those things. But purchasing meat I do avoid as I can clearly see the violent connection.

Are these dietary restrictions of avoiding garlic and onions more common in the Vaishnava sampradayas? I know I have read Prabhupada teaching to avoid these foods.

 

[Chakra]

Are these dietary restrictions of avoiding garlic and onions more common in the Vaishnava sampradayas? I know I have read Prabhupada teaching to avoid these foods.

Yeah, mainly because Vaishnavas use the Sattvik Puranas so much. However, I don't think that it is a Vaishnava only thing. Smartas may also have such restrictions.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank you for your answer. One of the reasons I am curious is because vegetarianism is not a requirement in Theravada Buddhism, even for monks. (With a few exceptions, such as human flesh...) The reasoning being that in Buddhism, the mind is key and not the body. Karma is created by mental intention. So, slaughtering an animal is wrong because of the intent generated towards taking a life. Walking into a restaurant and eating a hamburger is perfectly fine as no intent is formed to take a life. Eating dead flesh is not the same act as taking a life. Different intentions guide each of those actions. Properly speaking, the only intent that should precipitate eating anything is the mere intention to provide nutrients to your body and satisfy hunger. If you are eating merely to experience a taste you like, you are eating with Wrong Intent.

I hear your argument. But to me the argument that wins the day is 'the meat eater is fueling the violence'. It seems the meat eater is concerning himself with his own mind but lacking compassion for other sentient beings.

 

[Jainarayan]

In fact, some schools require that you be a vegetarian.

Or else... ?

 

[Chakra]

Or else... ?

Or you don't get initiated.