Why do Hindus eat chicken/ fish but not other meat?

[ratikala]

Namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व ji

Both non-vegetarianism and consumption of alcohol was forbidden only for the brāhmaṇas, however. And as was the general practice, it was common to offer to yajña or iṣṭa devata whatever one consumed, which is what led to the popularity of the ritualistic, literalist tradition.

Sadly this idea that one offers what is commonly used within the household is in some respects a laziness , which can then be streched to being outrightly inconsistant with Dharma . as Shastra claarly outlines what is offerable and what is not , .....

pantram pushpam phalam toyam pantram
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakti upahritam
asnami prayatatmanah

a leaf , a flower, a fruit , water , ...whoever unto me with pure devotion offers that , ...I will accept it​

here is stressed the pure state of mind with which one must offer , ....and that one must offer what is acceptable , ...

However what is most important to anyone wishing to offer is that it is done with a pure mind , ..therefore one thinks of the likes of the preferences of the one to whom he or she is making the offering , rather than thinking what we will like to eat later , ....

In any case, slaughter/ill-treatment/consumption of cow was forbidden for all. From a purely social perspective, cows during the time, were central to the functioning of the entire civilization. Association of animals as vāhanas of various deities had nothing to do with abstaining from consuming its flesh, for you will (going by literal translations) find instances where consumption of bull (Nandi of Śiva) is indicated, nay cherished.

Jai Jai , ...

But it is really pointless to enforce vegetarianism, even if only on Hindus, for popular hinduism is a melting pot of several ideas and concepts and has come to be something where every hindu has her/his own conception about it.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

I agree that it is pointless to enforce it , .especialy for those born into families with a tradition of meat eating ....but none the less I canot sit by whilst others try to find justification within Shastra and within tradition without as you have done pointing out that Shastra dosent actualy support it , ....but when it comes to Sanatana Dharma I think we realy do need to look back to find the un corrupted purport .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram , ...

Perhaps. Perhaps I will only truly find it in the next life. Who knows, really?

you will one day , ....

Indeed shirking responsibility is what we youthful rapscallions are known for.

I know plenty of young Vaisnava , who do not behave like rapscallions , ...

This isn't a competition, it's just a figure of speech.

The lamenting of a life wasted only comes when one has regrets. I have many already, but enjoying what I enjoy is not one of them. Perhaps this is just the hubris one has at a young age talking, but I'm happy with my life and choices.

no , ..no competition , ....but you are too young to know the true meaning of regret , it isnt nececarily a big emotional fit of depression over the lost years but just a recognition of what Dharma truely means , ....and that we have duties we are not nececarily here for the seeking of personal pleasures , ...and that these pleasures are themselves quite empty , but they bind us , ....it is the being bound that we come to regret , .....

 

[SomeRandom]

you will one day , ....

Well you're more of a positive thinker than I am.

I know plenty of young Vaisnava , who do not behave like rapscallions , ...

The terms youthful and rapscallions when used together imply that one is only referring to youths who are in fact rapscallions and not youth as a whole. But I was being rather cheeky admittedly.

no , ..no competition , ....but you are too young to know the true meaning of regret , it isnt nececarily a big emotional fit of depression over the lost years but just a recognition of what Dharma truely means , ....and that we have duties we are not nececarily here for the seeking of personal pleasures , ...and that these pleasures are themselves quite empty , but they bind us , ....it is the being bound that we come to regret , .....

Ahh yes, I am far too young, too brash to "truly know" what you are referring to.

But I know the true meaning of regret, do not presume to know my life is devoid of true regrets simply because I am young, my friend. I lack wisdom and experience, this is true. But I'm not spiritually inert either.

 

[ratikala]

Well you're more of a positive thinker than I am.

far as I see it there is no other option , ...and seeing as you mention interms of lifetimes , .... well it is just a case of sooner or later , ....

The terms youthful and rapscallions when used together imply that one is only referring to youths who are in fact rapscallions and not youth as a whole. But I was being rather cheeky admittedly.

even the elderly are not imune to behaving a little rapscallion like at times , a little cheekiness is OK providing the heart is in the right place , .....

Ahh yes, I am far too young, too brash to "truly know" what you are referring to.

But I know the true meaning of regret, do not presume to know my life is devoid of true regrets simply because I am young, my friend. I lack wisdom and experience, this is true. But I'm not spiritually inert either.

being serious now .....we create samskara's , imprints , ...one action or even intention leads to the next , ...being ''not spiritually inert'' will inturn bear its own fruits , ....wisdom and experience , .... but activities like meat eating and other impious activities also leave imprints , the problem is when two conflicting sets of imprints occur together they cancel each other out , one pushing you forward in your sadhana the other holding you back in the material realm , all one is doing is continualy ritualy clensing or purifying the self only to sully it again , therefore it is hard for one to move forward , ...this way we take Birth again and again untill we finaly tire of the endless cycle ..........just a thought to ponder upon

 

[SomeRandom]

far as I see it there is no other option , ...and seeing as you mention interms of lifetimes , .... well it is just a case of sooner or later , ....

Perhaps. Perhaps I won't ever get it right. *shrugs*

even the elderly are not imune to behaving a little rapscallion like at times , a little cheekiness is OK providing the heart is in the right place , .....

My heart is always in the right place.

being serious now .....we create samskara's , imprints , ...one action or even intention leads to the next , ...being ''not spiritually inert'' will inturn bear its own fruits , ....wisdom and experience , .... but activities like meat eating and other impious activities also leave imprints , the problem is when two conflicting sets of imprints occur together they cancel each other out , one pushing you forward in your sadhana the other holding you back in the material realm , all one is doing is continualy ritualy clensing or purifying the self only to sully it again , therefore it is hard for one to move forward , ...this way we take Birth again and again untill we finaly tire of the endless cycle ..........just a thought to ponder upon

Maybe. Maybe I am merely following basic nutrition. I need protein in my diet, I hate nuts but am not adverse to meat. Ergo meat it is. Apart from going hardcore vegan there is no human diet on the planet that does not involve the death of something, be it grass, plants or seeds eaten before they develop. Even the picking of fruit is not always entirely beneficial to the plant. Now synthetic food may be available rather soon, but it's not readily available where I live. And vegetarianism is a diet that involves the death of plants by default. If God resides in every living thing, which is why one must avoid eating meat, why then is vegetarianism usually offered as an alternative? Plants are living things, is there no God to be found in them?

The circle of life is such that death is inevitable and is often for the benefit of others. The meat eaters can survive, the ants can cart away the rubbish to eat and the decomposed body makes fertile soil for life.

Death for the sustenance of life is inherent in God's creation. Why try to avoid something inherent in creation?
(Also I advocate for humane and ethical treatment of any living thing, even if you're going to eat it.)

 

[StarryNightshade]

Statistics how that only 30-40% of all Hindus are vegetarian. And probably less are "pure" vegetarian *(abstaining from eggs, onion, and garlic in addition to meat).

There is no one catch-all-be-all creed, belief, or statement that can describe Hinduism and what it's adherents follow or do.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Here is a excerpt from wikipedia

Wikipedia is part of the problem of disinformation, which is what i tried to elaborate (mainly from a historical perspective) in my previous post.

It says many Hindus to this day still do it. But Hinduism is defined by following the Vedas so it is appropriate to say the only those which follow the Vedas are Hindus (whether they be Sanatan Dharma or Arya Samaj)

Hinduism today is so diverse that such a definition (notwithstanding Supreme Court's (of India) acceptance of such a definition) is too narrow. No doubt, the roots of Hinduism is in the vedas, but can we safely assume all Hindus are Vaidikas? Not at all. Most Hindus are ignorant of the Vedas and their import. Even those that claim to be proud Hindus can't even read the vaidika mantras properly and their understanding utmost is only from translations of various western Indologists employed by the british during colonial rule with the sole intention of undermining indigenous vaidika sciences & traditions in order to impose Anglo superiority which then expanded into Euro-centric superiority. Most english educated Indians are yet to come out of this colonial intellectual hangover. We vaidika hindus who can study and understand the vaidika mantras firsthand, find these translations to be pathetic. But the idea of "hinduism" before it was named as such by people outside the bhārata region (could be persians but some also propose that it was actually the arabs) was always a composition of non-monolithic geo-socio-cultural beliefs and practices with diverse and diverging and often opposing philosophies and theologies. "Dharmic traditions" is perhaps more of an appropriate terminology, i believe, in which case all traditions that originated in bhārata-varśa can be considered "Hindu". So all vaidikas are hindus, but all hindus are (need) not (be) vaidikas. It was common practice in Śaiva and Śākta traditions of the yore - which existed along with the vaidika traditions after a point- to sacrifice goats/oxen/buffalos etc to their deities. Both of these had their own individual philosophies and practices, some of which integrated with the vaidika traditions, while some continue to be independent.

.but none the less I canot sit by whilst others try to find justification within Shastra and within tradition without as you have done pointing out that Shastra dosent actualy support it , ....but when it comes to Sanatana Dharma I think we realy do need to look back to find the un corrupted purport .

Namaste Ratikala ji
I agree, but the truth is quite obvious too, only people for some reason choose ignore it. But as you indicated quoting from Srimadbhāgavatham, there were indeed people, and even vaidikas at that, who resorted to paśubali, which is why you have so many purāṇas objecting to such interpretation of Vedas. The true purport is already out there (ākāśa reverberates the Vedas incessantly) Ratikala ji. For instance, sacrificing a goat actually means sacrificing ahaṅkāra in some types of yajñas while it means sacrificing 'lack of discernment' in others. There is a mantra in the puruṣa sūkta which when taken literally would imply nara-bali (sacrificing a human)!

And vegetarianism is a diet that involves the death of plants by default. If God resides in every living thing, which is why one must avoid eating meat, why then is vegetarianism usually offered as an alternative? Plants are living things, is there no God to be found in them?

If i may intervene. this is a common refrain, that vegetarianism also results in killing. In fact the vedas proclaimed, long before the invention of microscope, that every moment a human lives, (s)he is causing the end of innumerable organisms, while breathing, walking, etc. Absolute ahimsa (in this realm) is only possible for a paramahaṁsa who has conquered breath. For the remaining mortals, food is classified - based on their influence on the mind - as belonging to three guṇas. The highest sattva is collecting food like grains, fruits, etc that remain after the farmer has reaped, birds have taken their share etc called śilonca vṛtti, then by accepting that which comes unasked, then by begging, then by actually tilling/growing each in the decreasing order and only vegan, sattva+rajas is vegetarian but with several restrictions, rajas is vegetarian without strict regulations, rajas+tamas is consuming veg and meat with some restrictions, tamas is eating whatever one finds edible with no restrictions. Certain restricted foods have medicinal properties, but the ancient wisdom laid more emphasis on its influence on the mind - the only tool at our disposal for knowledge - 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, i concur with ratikala ji, that controlling eating habits is of prime importance.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[ronki23]

Here is another excerpt which shows that it's not limited to just one area:

The Rajput of Rajasthan offer a sacrifice of buffalo or goat to the their family Goddess ( Kuldevta) during the festival of Navaratri.[34] The ritual requires slaying of the animal with a single stroke. In the past this ritual was considered a rite of passage for young men. The ritual is directed by a Brahmin priest.[35]

Animal Sacrifice is practiced by people in Southern Indian states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu by local Hindu people. It is most notably done in front of Local Deities or Clan Deities. The ritual involves most caste members of the village with each caste performing different roles. In Karnataka, the Goddess receiving the sacrifice tends to be Renuka. The animal is either a male buffalo or a goat.[36] [37]

The Kathar or Kutadi community of Maharashtra while observing the Pachvi ceremony, after delivery of a child in the family, offer worship to their family deity, Saptashrungi and also offer a sacrifice of a goat. Following this they hold the naming ceremony of the child on the 12th day.[38]

In some Sacred groves of India, particularly in Western Maharashtra, animal sacrifice is practiced to pacify female deities that are supposed to rule the Groves.[39] Animal sacrifice is also practiced by caste Hindus to placate deities at temples[40]

Animal sacrifice is practiced in some Eastern states of India and Nepal.,[41][42] The Hindu temples in Assam and West Bengal in India and Nepal where this takes place involves slaying of goats, chickens and sometimes male Water buffalos .,[41][43] These sacrifices are mainly done at temples following the Shakti school of Hinduism where the female nature of Brahman is worshipped in the form of Kali and Durga. A number Tantric Puranas specify the ritual for how the animal should be slayed. In Bengal, a priest recites the Gayatri Mantra in the ear of animal to be sacrificed, in order to free the animal from the cycle of life and death.[44]

Animal sacrifice en masse occurs during the three-day-long Gadhimai festival in Nepal. In 2009 it was speculated that more than 250,000 animals were killed[45] while 5 million devotees attended the festival.[46]

Bali Jatra of Sonepur in Orissa, India is also an annual festival celebrated in the month of Aswina (September–October) when animal sacrifice is an integral part of the ritual worship of deities namely Samaleswari, Sureswari and Khambeswari. Bali refers to animal sacrifice and hence this annual festival is called Bali Jatra.[50] (Barik, 2009:160-162).[full citation needed]

Why do some Hindus still do it? There must be a reason if the vedas say you shouldn't

More importantly why is chicken eaten so widely if Bahuchara mata rides a chicken as my cousin says I shouldn't eat snake (not that I would) and I refrained from eating crocodile meat once as I thought I shouldn't because of Makara

And Guru Nanak and Guru Hargobind ate meat as well as Shirdi Sai Baba. If the term 'Hindu' is a range of beliefs, you could question why they too ate meat

 

[SomeRandom]

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, i concur with ratikala ji, that controlling eating habits is of prime importance.

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.
5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)
Vegans and Vegetarians may be healthy (this is actually somewhat disputed in many cases) but for every single food they refuse to ingest they have to be highly careful of what alternatives they do consume, for they need to ensure they are getting all the necessary vitamins and nutrients one gets from meat and in some cases dairy products. And the research seems a tad incomplete right now as to the actual efficiency that one can accomplish this feat with said alternatives.

So if you wouldn't mind, break it down for me, a Westerner rather deficient in Hindi.
Science continuously points to the advantages and strengthening affects meat and veges have on human health (provided they're not full of preservatives and all that other factory farming crap) how exactly do these foods affect us negatively?

 

[ronki23]

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.
5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)
Vegans and Vegetarians may be healthy (this is actually somewhat disputed in many cases) but for every single food they refuse to ingest they have to be highly careful of what alternatives they do consume, for they need to ensure they are getting all the necessary vitamins and nutrients one gets from meat and in some cases dairy products. And the research seems a tad incomplete right now as to the actual efficiency that one can accomplish this feat with said alternatives.

So if you wouldn't mind, break it down for me, a Westerner rather deficient in Hindi.
Science continuously points to the advantages and strengthening affects meat and veges have on human health (provided they're not full of preservatives and all that other factory farming crap) how exactly do these foods affect us negatively?

I'm no expert on nutrition but there are health risks with meat including:

1. Loss of bone calcium from high protein diets
2. Increase in bad cholesterol from red meats high in saturated fats
3. Constipation and divetriculitis
4. Mercury poisoning
5. Salmonella
6. Vibrio vulnificus
7. Cancer from excessive pork consumption

The above reasons shouldn't be the basis of prohibition of foodstuffs in any religion as 'it's at ones own risk' eating meat so religions shouldnt forbid foods based on century old diseases

And vegetarians can get B vitamins from milk. Not to mention you get all essential amino acids by combining vegetarian food.

Of course I'm not vegetarian and looking at life expectancy, Italians and Japanese live the longest; both cultures which thrive off of seafood.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm no expert on nutrition but there are health risks with meat including:

1. Loss of bone calcium from high protein diets
2. Increase in bad cholesterol from red meats high in saturated fats
3. Constipation and divetriculitis
4. Mercury poisoning
5. Salmonella
6. Vibrio vulnificus
7. Cancer from excessive pork consumption

The above reasons shouldn't be the basis of prohibition of foodstuffs in any religion as 'it's at ones own risk' eating meat so religions shouldnt forbid foods based on century old diseases

And vegetarians can get B vitamins from milk. Not to mention you get all essential amino acids by combining vegetarian food.

Of course I'm not vegetarian and looking at life expectancy, Italians and Japanese live the longest; both cultures which thrive off of seafood.

1. Calcium is normally given to us by dairy products such as milk. If you're abstaining from milk products and not getting an alternative source, it really doesn't matter if you eat meat or not. It is still unhealthy. Also "high protein diets" is not synonymous with high intakes of meat. You can have a high protein diet without meat, you know? Regardless of the intake of meat in such a diet, it's not always recommended to be the safest or healthiest. So what is your point exactly?
2. That's why I said meats free of all that "factory farming crap." Red meat isn't by it's nature high in saturated fats. So it really depends on what cut you're consuming. Nutritionists commonly recommend lean cuts of meat because of this.
3.To avoid this ensure you have enough fiber in your diet. That doesn't really have a lot to do with whether or not you eat meat, though. Your point being?
4. That's to do with Fish (more often than not whale or dolphin) high in Methylmercury, not all meat in general. I don't even eat fish, except for just after Diwali, which even my local Pandit doesn't seem to be concerned about.
5. Salmonella is not a problem if you follow basic food safety knowledge and refrain from eating raw chicken, mate. Who the hell eats raw chicken without at least some health preparation first anyway?
6. Caused by ingesting raw or under cooked shellfish. Again, not a problem if you follow basic food safety knowledge and nothing to do with meat consumption in general. As even the most ardent of seafood lovers are not always interchangeable with meat eaters and normally COOK their shellfish before ingesting. Other causes include necrotizing wounds coming in contact with contaminated water.
7. Living causes cancer, mate. Literally. Also key word there, excessive. All that tells me is that you shouldn't be eating pork all the time. That's not exactly a prohibition against it, mate. If you eat mandarins or oranges all the time you can end up with Diabetes! No matter what we consume in this world, it has an associated risk. That's just how nature is. Which is why we have a recommended balanced diet to begin with!

All your supposed risks assume that one is having a completely carnivorous lifestyle (we're omnivores, mate not carnivores or even herbivores) or is caused by known unsafe food safety preparation or involves an unbalanced diet, which is not recommended in the first place, regardless of whether or not you eat meat. Not to mention all those so called "risks" are very easily negated, without any real need to cut meat from one's diet.

Oh and vegetarians can't get Carnosine which is something that helps the body naturally fight many types of diseases. Not matter how hard they try.

According to your own "risk assessment" list the Italian and Japanese Diets carry with them a high risk of numbers 4 and 6 occurring to it's citizens. So your point is?

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Where the land is barren or suffers from frequent droughts, animal breeding is done for survival. In some states like West Bengal, they are flooded for half the year. Hence one cannot do any farming. So they started eating Fish. Bengalis consider Fish as veg. Some also say that those animals with lesser Life span are referred over other animals. Carnivorous animals are generally avoided.

Technically we are Lacto-Vegetarians and not Vegetarians.

I have complied an article on Non-violence and Vegetarianism.

INDIASPIRITUALITY: Non-violence and Vegetarianism

Hari OM

 

[ronki23]

1. Calcium is normally given to us by dairy products such as milk. If you're abstaining from milk products and not getting an alternative source, it really doesn't matter if you eat meat or not. It is still unhealthy. Also "high protein diets" is not synonymous with high intakes of meat. You can have a high protein diet without meat, you know? Regardless of the intake of meat in such a diet, it's not always recommended to be the safest or healthiest. So what is your point exactly?
2. That's why I said meats free of all that "factory farming crap." Red meat isn't by it's nature high in saturated fats. So it really depends on what cut you're consuming. Nutritionists commonly recommend lean cuts of meat because of this.
3.To avoid this ensure you have enough fiber in your diet. That doesn't really have a lot to do with whether or not you eat meat, though. Your point being?
4. That's to do with Fish (more often than not whale or dolphin) high in Methylmercury, not all meat in general. I don't even eat fish, except for just after Diwali, which even my local Pandit doesn't seem to be concerned about.
5. Salmonella is not a problem if you follow basic food safety knowledge and refrain from eating raw chicken, mate. Who the hell eats raw chicken without at least some health preparation first anyway?
6. Caused by ingesting raw or under cooked shellfish. Again, not a problem if you follow basic food safety knowledge and nothing to do with meat consumption in general. As even the most ardent of seafood lovers are not always interchangeable with meat eaters and normally COOK their shellfish before ingesting. Other causes include necrotizing wounds coming in contact with contaminated water.
7. Living causes cancer, mate. Literally. Also key word there, excessive. All that tells me is that you shouldn't be eating pork all the time. That's not exactly a prohibition against it, mate. If you eat mandarins or oranges all the time you can end up with Diabetes! No matter what we consume in this world, it has an associated risk. That's just how nature is. Which is why we have a recommended balanced diet to begin with!

All your supposed risks assume that one is having a completely carnivorous lifestyle (we're omnivores, mate not carnivores or even herbivores) or is caused by known unsafe food safety preparation or involves an unbalanced diet, which is not recommended in the first place, regardless of whether or not you eat meat. Not to mention all those so called "risks" are very easily negated, without any real need to cut meat from one's diet.

Oh and vegetarians can't get Carnosine which is something that helps the body naturally fight many types of diseases. Not matter how hard they try.

According to your own "risk assessment" list the Italian and Japanese Diets carry with them a high risk of numbers 4 and 6 occurring to it's citizens. So your point is?

1.Yes you can get a high protein diet without meat but it's unlikely you'll get a high protein vegetarian diet that causes bones to lose calcium. After all, nuts (a vegetarian source of protein) like almonds also provide calcium

3. Diverticulitis is aggravated by excessive meat consumption/ too much meat causes constipation if not enough fibre is ingested (hence the reason I said too much meat e.g. too much as a % of your daily intake)

7. I meant pork products like bacon increase risk of cancer. See:

and regarding points 4 and 6, last time I checked fish don't grow on trees so eating fish doesn't make one vegetarian. The Japanese and Italians also eat more mono-unsaturates.

Fyi there's no definitive answer regarding vegetarian lifespan. It is leaning towards vegetarians living longer than meat eaters but leaning =/= truth. Veganism is a concept I find nonsense and arguably torturous though

This was a well known study (again, i'd like to point out I eat meat 1-2x a week on average)

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded...

The study drew data from the Adventist Health Study, which is a large-scale study of the nutritional habits and practices of more than 96,000 Seventh-day Adventists throughout the United States and Canada. The study population is multi-ethnic and geographically diverse.

"The study sample is heterogeneous and our data is rich. We analyzed more than 73,000 participants. The level of detail we have on food consumption and health outcomes at the individual level makes these findings unprecedented," Soret said.

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

INDIASPIRITUALITY: Non-violence and Vegetarianism

That blog does it belong to you? In that you've written that sex outside of marriage accrues sin to the husband but I don't see you write something similar for the wife.

 

[Amrut]

That blog does it belong to you? In that you've written that sex outside of marriage accrues sin to the husband but I don't see you write something similar for the wife.

Yes It is my blog. Please can you point out where I have written it? It is same for wife too.
Please quote in PM as this is not the topic of thread.
Thanks

 

[SomeRandom]

1.Yes you can get a high protein diet without meat but it's unlikely you'll get a high protein vegetarian diet that causes bones to lose calcium. After all, nuts (a vegetarian source of protein) like almonds also provide calcium

3. Diverticulitis is aggravated by excessive meat consumption/ too much meat causes constipation if not enough fibre is ingested (hence the reason I said too much meat e.g. too much as a % of your daily intake)

7. I meant pork products like bacon increase risk of cancer. See:

and regarding points 4 and 6, last time I checked fish don't grow on trees so eating fish doesn't make one vegetarian. The Japanese and Italians also eat more mono-unsaturates.

Fyi there's no definitive answer regarding vegetarian lifespan. It is leaning towards vegetarians living longer than meat eaters but leaning =/= truth. Veganism is a concept I find nonsense and arguably torturous though

This was a well known study (again, i'd like to point out I eat meat 1-2x a week on average)

High protein diets are not recommended regardless if you eat meat or not.

It is aggravated by high consumption of fat actually. And again the word excessive. Just because you eat meat doesn't mean you only eat meat or have a high intake of meat. Your risks are risky for those with an unbalanced diet. Too much of literally anything will kill you or at least make you sick.

Seafood eaters are not vegetarians, this is true but they're not always big on meat consumption (beef, chicken etc.) Which is why I said they're not always interchangeable with meat eaters per se.

Meh I'll gladly risk cancer for some bacon. I risk it going to the beach or walking down the street so what's a bit of bacon, right?


The world is full of risks, even milk has risks. Again this is why nutritionists recommend a balanced diet not refraining from meat, though the choice is there if one wants.

 

[ronki23]

High protein diets are not recommended regardless if you eat meat or not.

It is aggravated by high consumption of fat actually. And again the word excessive. Just because you eat meat doesn't mean you only eat meat or have a high intake of meat. Your risks are risky for those with an unbalanced diet. Too much of literally anything will kill you or at least make you sick.

Seafood eaters are not vegetarians, this is true but they're not always big on meat consumption (beef, chicken etc.) Which is why I said they're not always interchangeable with meat eaters per se.

Meh I'll gladly risk cancer for some bacon. I risk it going to the beach or walking down the street so what's a bit of bacon, right?


The world is full of risks, even milk has risks. Again this is why nutritionists recommend a balanced diet not refraining from meat, though the choice is there if one wants.

The risk of processed pork products has been well documented.

And the study analysed over 70,000 people to show pescatarians and semi-vegetarians (like myself where meat was consumed 1-2x weekly) lived the longest

Study participants were divided into five groups: non-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian (includes seafood), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (includes dairy and egg products), and vegan (excludes all animal products).

Pesco-vegetarians had an even lower risk of death—19 percent for all causes—as well as a 35 percent lower risk of death from heart disease.

Orlich said he found that the benefits of vegetarianism were more pronounced when he looked at specific diseases. “We found a striking association with renal failure and endocrine disorders,” he said. Vegetarians were 52 percent less likely to die from kidney failure and 39 percent less likely to die from endocrine and diabetes-related disorders.

Of course semi vegetarianism and pescaterianism mortality would not be the reason people offered meat as prasad when religious books say you shouldn't. After all, sparing servings of meat/ regular fish consumption is good for the health

And as I said, there must be a reason chicken is eaten widely in India and aligators are not; I originally thought it was the deity that rode them which made alligator and crocodile meat a taboo

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

How can meat harm our mind if it literally makes the brain stronger?

Several hundred generations have survived and more importantly derived brilliant intellectual insights on a wide variety of sciences living on a purely vegetarian diet. Medical research of our times change their tune every other year. Ayurveda, the time tested holistic medical science, provides very specific details about the influence of various food on the physiology and psychology of a human being. But it is difficult to explain the same in common english medical parlance, because a- am not a medical practitioner, and b- several saṁskṛta terms have no equivalents in english. But Ayurveda is a recognized medical system in India. My earlier post was primarily from the śāstra (~scriptures) perspective, which is closely reflected in the Vaidika medical science viz., Ayurveda.

So if you wouldn't mind, break it down for me, a Westerner rather deficient in Hindi.

Food not only affects our physiology but also significantly impacts our mind. It is not the same as brain which is a mere conduit for the mind to interact and express in the physical domain. But its quite impossible to accurately translate terms like sattva, rajas, and tamas.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[kalyan]

Several hundred generations have survived and more importantly derived brilliant intellectual insights on a wide variety of sciences living on a purely vegetarian diet. Medical research of our times change their tune every other year. Ayurveda, the time tested holistic medical science, provides very specific details about the influence of various food on the physiology and psychology of a human being. But it is difficult to explain the same in common english medical parlance, because a- am not a medical practitioner, and b- several saṁskṛta terms have no equivalents in english. But Ayurveda is a recognized medical system in India. My earlier post was primarily from the śāstra (~scriptures) perspective, which is closely reflected in the Vaidika medical science viz., Ayurveda.

Food not only affects our physiology but also significantly impacts our mind. It is not the same as brain which is a mere conduit for the mind to interact and express in the physical domain. But its quite impossible to accurately translate terms like sattva, rajas, and tamas.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

Quoted for truth.

Chandogya upanishad clearly says, how food affects manas, the subtle portion of food affects manas, the gross goes down as waste, the middle part becomes flesh and other things. Similarly the water and third the oils, each has subtler, gross , and medium parts that make function the body..

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.

The gunas are very very important as said by Sri Krushna in BG , that depending on the guna which is very active at last moment of death of the physical body, the Jiva gets next birth...Only sattwika guna can lead to the liberation and the food is the most important part.

 

[Amrut]

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.

Namate,

This is not correct

यजन्ते सात्त्विका देवान्यक्षरक्षांसि राजसाः।
प्रेतान्भूतगणांश्चान्ये यजन्ते तामसा जनाः।।17.4।।

।।17.4।।सात्त्विक मनुष्य देवताओंका पूजन करते हैं? राजस मनुष्य यक्षों और राक्षसोंका और दूसरे जो तामस मनुष्य हैं? वे प्रेतों और भूतगणोंका पूजन करते हैं।

17.4 यजन्ते worship? सात्त्विकाः the Sattvic or pure men? देवान् the gods? यक्षरक्षांसि the Yakshas and the Rakshasas? राजसाः the Rajasic or the passionate? प्रेतान् ghosts? भूतगणान् the hosts of Bhutas or the naturespirits? च and? अन्ये the others? यजन्ते worship? तामसाः the Tamasic? जनाः people.

17.4 The Sattvic or the pure men worship the gods; the Rajasic or the passionate worship the Yakshas and the Rakshasas; the others (the Tamasic or the deluded people) worship the ghosts and the hosts of the nature-spirits.

SrI rAmAnuja's commentary says the same

devatA-s even if you take them as demi-gods are not tAmasika. It is ghosts and spirits. rudra adopts tAmasa guNa when destroying the world. He himself is not tAmasic, rudra has benign form too, as seen in SrI rudram.

It is said that God grants wishes according to the nature of devotion and according to the demands of the devotee. You can ask Brahma GYAna or material wealth to Krishna too. Same with rudra. Siva himself is vairAgI (embodiment of dispassion)

Since vaiShnavas consider viShNu / Krishna as supreme, they would no matter ask anything to them including blessing their children to score goods marks, pray for success in marital life, progress in business and praying for good health of loved ones. Is this a sAttvika bhakti or rAjasika or tAmasika?, or is ti sAttvika just because they are praying to Krishna?

आहारस्त्वपि सर्वस्य त्रिविधो भवति प्रियः।
यज्ञस्तपस्तथा दानं तेषां भेदमिमं श्रृणु।।17.7।।

।।17.7।।आहार भी सबको तीन प्रकारका प्रिय होता है और वैसे ही यज्ञ? दान और तप भी तीन प्रकारके होते हैं अर्थात् शास्त्रीय कर्मोंमें भी तीन प्रकारकी रुचि होती है? तू उनके इस भेदको सुन।

17.7 Food also, which is dear to all, is of three kinds; and so also are sacrifices, austerity and charity. Listen to this classification of them.

17.7 आहारः food? तु indeed? अपि also? सर्वस्य of all? त्रिविधः threefold? भवति is? प्रियः dear? यज्ञः sacrifice? तपः austerity? तथा also? दानम् almsgiving? तेषाम् their? भेदम् distinction? इमम् this? श्रृणु hear.

English Translation of Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Adidevananda

17.7 Even the food which is dear to the host of all beings is of three kinds because of the association of the three Gunas consisting of Sattva etc. Similarly, sacrifices also are of three kinds. So too austerity and charity. Listen about this distinction, which is being described, about foods, sacrifices, austerities and gifts according to differences of Sattva etc.

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
17.7 food also which is dear to all who eat it is of three kinds so also sacrifices; similarly,austerity, so also, charity. listen to this classification of them of food etc., which is going to be stated.

Entire chapter 17 talks about devotion in relation to three guNa-s.

17.11 That sacrifice which is offered by men without desire for reward as enjoined by the ordinance (scripture), with a firm faith that to do so is a duty, is Sattvic or pure.

17.12 The sacrifice which is offered, O Arjuna, seeking a reward and for ostentation, know thou that to be a Rajasic Yajna.

17.13 They declare that sacrifice to be Tamasic which is contrary to the ordinances of the scriptures, in which no food is distributed, which is devoid of Mantras, gifts and faith.

Yajnas are same, the difference is intention, which depends upon predominant guNa active during Yajna or any similar act or penance.
---

Coming back to OP's question, as said earlier, beginning of eating non-veg began due to unavoidable circumstances like flood or draught. Selection of animal is done keeping practical and spiritual reasons in mind. Pork and some other animals, specially carnivorous animals have too much of negative energy. Cows are always sacred and hence Hindus do not avoid them. It is clearly mentioned in parAshara smriti and other smriti-s to respect Cows, women and children.

As one progresses spiritually, it is strongly advised to avoid non-veg, specially if you are practising Yoga. Being Lacto-Veg is compulsory.

OM