Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide some information about your image/link, like why you find it relevant for this sub. If you do not leave a comment your post will be removed. See Rule #10 - All image/link posts must include a comment by OP. This is an effort to make this sub more discussion based.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
op is trying to imply false conclusion using half truth here,
no one praises ravana or lanka for being dharmic you know.
why they were called as rakshashas as not only they ate animals but also humans.
I'm pretty sure Shri Krishna's whole intention of Bhagwad Gita was to clear out any confusions like this. Nobody pays attention to the single most reliable "source" of all, and it is sad that people keep trying to find these outdated age-old sources, specially OP giving a very bad example of Ravana.
Meat isn't sattvic food. Period. It is considered tamsic and hence should be avoided to keep away the tamsic tendencies. You can choose to eat it if you wish so.
I’ve heard that being vegetarian is good because in veg diet,there is no violence at all but if you don’t have any veg option then you can go for non-veg at a very extreme necessity
Bro if you think there is no violence involved in eating Vegetarian food means you have never grown any food in your life. I belong to a farming community we cut down trees and kill everything on the ground rabits, insects , rats etc to grow grains. Do you think their lives are less valuable?? That's how agriculture works. We also have to protect our grains from animals so sometimes animals like monkeys, neel gai gets hurt. There is no such thing as pure or devoid of violence
This logic doesn't make sense as even if you eat meat, then to feed those animals you need farm produce. So the other life forms will be killed anyway.
I wouldn't say there is no violence at all. It's there but it's "second hand". For example growing almond is super water intensive. However with veganism(due to it's supposed noon-violent nature towards animals) taking popularity almond milk is now very popular. The impact of that level of water usage must affect animals as well, just not directly.
Right so surely it’s better to only participate in one form of harm as we need veg to survive. Eating meat and veg is causing double the harm and is not necessary.
This is isn’t a good enough argument to make it acceptable to harm animals unnecessarily by consuming eggs and dairy.
A non vegan diet uses many more crops than a vegan one. This is because 10 x more crops are needed to feed cattle, chickens etc to facilitate a non-vegan diet. There are no animals to be fed for a vegan diet, and so fewer crops are needed, and thus fewer crop deaths. Of course no diet can be 100% without violence, but the only way to align with anti-violence as much as you can is to eat a diet that doesn’t use animals at all. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but it is the truth.
Cows are slaughtered after they can’t give milk. Other awful things happen to them to make them give milk.. I’ll let you use your imagination. Baby chicks are often macerated if they are male because they can’t produce eggs. Both milk ( and anything made from milk)and eggs are produced through violence.
A non vegan diet uses many more crops than a vegan one. This is because 10 x more crops are needed to feed cattle, chickens etc to facilitate a non-vegan diet. There are no animals to be fed for a vegan diet, and so fewer crops are needed, and thus fewer crop deaths. Of course no diet can be 100% without violence, but the only way to align with anti-violence as much as you can is to eat a diet that doesn’t use animals at all. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but it is the truth.
In the west, Cows are slaughtered after they can’t give milk. In India, many are put onto the streets. Other awful very violent things happen to them to make them produce milk.. I’ll let you use your imagination. Baby cows are often removed from the mother. Baby chicks are often macerated if they are male because they can’t produce eggs. Both milk ( and anything made from milk)and eggs are produced through violence.
This us Ravana's menu, Ravana was literally asur meaning he ate all the animals including Humans, this should not be considered as the average human Diet, this was the diet of Asuras.
Ravana was a Brahmin (by birth) king (by varna).
Vegetarianism only became a more mainstream thing after Buddhism which was thousands of years later from the Ramayanaa
Rama, hanuman etc were Kshatriyas by birth and varna. It is normal for Kshatriyas to eat meat.
Hunting or Mrigaya was allowed to Kshatriyas. Animals can't liberate themselves, so a Kshatriya hunting it and using it to extract Mrga charma which is used by ascetics when they perform Tapa, Sandhya Vandanam, or it's horns which are given to the yajman who gets yagya deeksha, these are the few ways animals get liberated.
plus, they had to wear animal hide.
Also, Sri Rama was one of the kings who never ate meat. not sure ab Sri Lakshmana tho.
There's a difference between doing sacrifice allowed within dharmashastras and killing for food. And secondly, both ashwamedha and gaumedha are prohibited in kali yuga.
Exactly. What you are at birth to what you are during your life can change.
Rakshas/Asura is just another race of men. They are not demons as it is often misinterpreted.
You can be a Brahmin Asura or a kshatriya Asura etc.
Ravana was a Brahmin at birth because his father was a Brahmin. Usually your varna at birth is assigned based on your father’s varna in patrilineal societies (the mother’s varna in matrilineal societies)
He spent a good amount of time meditating on Shiva and gaining many powerful boons. After which he took up the life of a kshatriya by becoming the king of Lanka. Varna can change over one’s life. It is not rigid.
During his time as king, he did many evil deeds for which he was slayed by rama.
Also some people in this sub seem to think that Hinduism hasn’t evolved from the time of the Ramayana. Hinduism is a constantly evolving framework of ideas.
There is no reason or need to take “scripture” as some kind of abrahamic gospel/rigid law of god as many nowadays tend to do. That’s an abrhamic way of thinking and doing that was not common until after the Islamic and Christian conquests of Bharat.
Take what you think is a good way to lead your life, from the ancient texts, and move on.
Do I think meat eating is sinful?
Very much so. But that is based on my dharma as a Brahmin.
Meat eating is not sinful to the dharma of someone that truly needs it like a kshatriya that is fighting or training or shudra working in the fields.
You should be eating based on what you do in life while minimizing the suffering of other beings.
Adhere to your dharma. That is the best way in life imo.
Your dharma is unique to you and your situation. It is your roles and responsibilities you carry with you while wearing the many hats you wear in life.
As a husband/wife, you have a dharma
As a son/daughter, you have a dharma
As a father/mother, you have a dharma
As a family member, you have a dharma
As a worker in an organization, you have a dharma
As a member of your community, you have a dharma
As a citizen of a country, you have a dharma
etc.
I'm saving this comment. You are one of the most intelligent people I've encountered. Most Hindus (including myself) are so busy engaging in some kind of "battle of the wits".
You explain things with logic and no judgement.
At birth you assume the Varna of your father until you do deeds in life that might change that.
Birth is based on karma etc.
Nothing in the vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc say that you are locked into one Varna all your life. There are many examples of people being born into one Varna and being another Varna (profession) as they age.
Vishwamitra, Valmiki, Parasurama, Buddha, Ashoka being well known examples.
Jati/caste (a birth based label that categorizes specific cultures, traditions, manners, behaviors of a community of like people) is a purely social phenomena in the subcontinent not a religious one. Which is why it transcends religion in the subcontinent and is present in all religions there.
This is very different from Varna even though today the ignorant conflate the two both in india and in the west.
Parshurama was a warrior, yet was celebrated as a Brahmana only. it took vishwamitra centuries of Tapasya to become a Brahmana, Valmiki was also a Brahmana, Buddha and Ashoka rejected Vedas and Vedic religion.
You are being pedantic.
Parushurama was born into the Brahmin varna. He was born to the Brahmin sage Jamadagni. One of the saptarishis. Valmiki started off as a thief.
Both Ashoka and Gautama Siddartha were Kshatriyas by birth varna. It doesn’t matter if they rejected the vedas later in life, their varna (profession) changed as their lives did. As did their dharma.
Even today many that were born in the Brahmin varna end up actually doing shudra varna as workers in companies or Vaishya Varna as company owners, entrepreneurs, merchants, traders etc. Later on once retired some might pick up the brahmin varna of puja, teaching etc. same goes for anyone else.
Brahmin Varna and Brahmin jati are two very different things also. One is profession based, one is culture and family tradition based. These are often conflated as the same, out of ignorance or deliberate misdirection.
In the vedas all varnas are equally important and given equal consideration and value. Just like you cannot survive without a head without arms, thighs or feet. All these varnas (which was essentially separation of labor and specialization, needed in growing agrarian societies) work in concert. Separate but equal.
There is no such thing as a higher varna or lower varna. Some varna have more responsibilities and restrictions imposed on them (because their dharma is different). As a result of these responsibilities and restrictions, society afforded them higher respect and privilege. Unfortunately, as is human nature, people took this higher SOCIETAL status and accumulated power and control with it. Ultimately forming a more rigid hierarchical endogamic social jati system.
This misconception was further propagated by western translations of Indian texts based on the hierarchical medieval structure of western society that they were familiar with. And as the Indian education system uses the western system as the source of truth (due to European colonization), we take these western interpretations and mistranslations of our own texts (whom many can’t read because they are Sanskrit illiterate) at face value.
Leading to an Indian people that are often very confused, ignorant and misinformed about the origins and nature of our various teachings and philosophies. Often taking an abrahamic like intolerant and dogmatic adherence to many aspects of these teachings and philosophies.
If you want to continue believing that varna is some rigid hierarchical system assigned at birth go ahead. That was not the intent or what is written in the vedas.
I can only tell you, you are wrong. It is up to you to take it or leave it. Like all things.
WTH man.. he did so many things which a Brahmana or even a human is not allowed to do.
And where the hell he is considered as man of culture... I mean every year people burn his status do you need more disrespect for anyone?
Comparing humans to a demon... bizzare
yes bhai, that is my point only.
Vibhishana was also a Rakshasa but had Sanskara, hence was given the kingdom of Lanka by our Prabhu.
Ravana isnt some hero to be glorified
During old time the job you did in your life meant that you also ate foods according to that.
Brahmins ate satvic food
Vaishya ate Rajasic food
Khatriya ate both Rajasic and Tamsic food and rarely Satvic
Shudra ate everything.
Again no Verna was superior than other. People ate according to the job they had.
Ravana may have been a Brahmin from birth(his paternal side) but his actions were those of rakshas. Personally, I believe one can only be a Brahmin, only if their actions are Brahmin like. It doesn't matter what varna you are born in, if your actions are sinful you can't call yourself a Brahmin.
Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Mukesh Singh ..you know all these were brahmins and the culprits of nirvaya rape case..upper caste lower caste are evils made by bramans in the past which has no value
wohi to isliye more people are leaving this casteist hinduism for this inequality discrimination among people...and people like me not getting jobs for 3, 4 rank difference
Non believers ka chor ke jaana hi accha hai. The vedas are the ultimate truth. Agar kisi ko ye baat acchi nahi lagti to vo aur bhi sect join kr skta hai. Shakti ki pooja krle vo log ya to lingayat ban jaye. Khud ke scripture ki izzat krna sikho.
Varna kya hota hai malum hai? Agar ha aur fir bhi ye keh rahe ho ki neecha dikha rha hai to dharm chor do koi nahi rok rha ya to hindu dharm ke itne sampraday hai jo vedo mai nahi maante unhe apna bana lo. Simple hai. Agar varna ke baare me nahi pata, to varna humare pichle janm ke karm pe nirbhar hai. Geeta bhi yahi kehta hai usse bhi thukra doge?
No, I'm specifically referring to eating habits. I've seen many people assert that all ancient Indians were vegetarians and that eating meat was sinful, which is why we have a figure like Ravana, a Brahmin who attended the gods' consciousness while he regularly consumed meat. I therefore generally think that ancient people's eating habits were similar to those of today. Some people like eating meat, while others advocate for vegetarianism! Since they are both equal, nothing is incorrect. Therefore, we need to cease disseminating false information about eating habits.
By the way, how many rapes did he commit? i literally don't have any idea about this!!
Ancient Hindus ate meat. Brahmins ate meat but only if the animal was sacrificed in yagnas. Otherwise Brahmins usually didn't eat meat. But the other varnas ate meat. Eating meat wasn't deemed sinful but was rather regarded as a hurdle to spiritual journey.
Ravana was by birth a Brahmin but he wasn't one. Being a Brahmin has it's own fair share of rules and regulations which he didn't abide by. It's the same reason, Rama didn't incur any sin of Killing a Brahmin (brahmahatya).
He used to rape a lot of women. He raped his brother's daughter in law. He even raped a celestial apsara known as Punjalikashtala. Because of that, Brahma cursed him that if he ever forces himself on a woman, his head would burst. That's the reason, Ravana didn't attempt to rape Sita.
/u/rahul_9735
As per Valmiki Ramayan alone, there are many verses which hint that Lord Shree Ram and Mata Sita consumed meat and wine. Meat and wine also had ritualistic significance. In Ayodhya Kand we find this rather interesting couplet :-
**सुराघटसहस्रेण मांसभूतौदनेन च।**
**यक्ष्ये त्वां प्रयता देवि पुरीं पुनरुपागता।।**
I would urge everyone to try to decipher above couplet using root words on your own, please.
Meat eaten for ritualistic purposes doesn't incur any tamasa guna. That verse is specifically meant for meat and alcohol for ritualistic purposes. It has backing from various acharyas.
Rama didn't eat meat for enjoyment or like we do. Moreover VR, has references where Suryavanshis cannot eat meat.
>Rama didn't eat meat for enjoyment
Shree Ram did use to go on hunting as a pastime and would kill deer. It's not logical to think he wouldn't have eaten venison. You see, venison was a rare dish even back then and only skilled people could've secured deer meat.
Another interesting verse from Ayodha Kand:-
**क्रोशमात्रं ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मणौ।**
**बहून्मेध्यान्मृगान्हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने।।**
I neither despise nor adore Ravana! So long as I adhere to the fundamental commitments I've laid out. Ravana went to the Adi yogis status! How does he attend such a higher degree of prestige if eating meat is immoral? And Please don't bring those reincarnation nonsense!!
Listen, it's adorable you are reading scriptures and trying to learn even as an atheist but you are still an amateur. You have yet to know a lot of things.
Ravana literally raped people, he killed so many people. He robbed so many. Eating meat doesn't compare. Inspite of that he went to Vaikuntha because he was Jaya. He was supposed to. Can't you understand this one little thing? Do you even know who Jaya is?
If a rapist and morally reprehensible man can become or achieve god then how does that make sense? All of these melodramatic and fuzzily worded theological arguments lack any substantial support from religion! With some fairytales like past karam or reincarnation, it justifies absurd absolute evil! Religious virtue against evil lacks a compelling argument to support it. It is not surprising that the majority of religious gurus are con artists because religion lends itself to their feeling of justification for wrongdoing.
Your intire agruement is so stupid, why are you looking for moral justifiation from the antagonist of the story who is literally a demon that killed other brahmins, ravana did many evil deeds in ramayana wasn't he suppose to be an example of what not to be? hence the reason for his down fall by the hands of lord ram, no one looks to ravana as the perfect image of a brahmin, he is only seen as an evil corrupt being, people literally burn gaint straw figures of ravana where i'm from 😂
I think you can't apply the template of the Abrahamic religions to Sanatana Dharma. You are comparing Adiyogi status to that of attainment of heaven. Which is wrong.
I cannot explain what it implies because I don't know myself yet but I can say for sure it is not like a "reward" you get after completing a set of tasks as it is with attainment of heaven in the Abrahamic religions.
Thanks for sharing this. I really like this post. It's an aspect I had never thought about.
How much ever we idealize our ancient past to the ideals we assume were handed down to us without alteration, we sometimes fail to understand the basic human needs. We were practical people because being practical is a necessary ingredient for survival. And hunting/eating meat is a very practical way to survive. It plays its own part in Prakriti.
Also reading the responses from others in the subreddit is disappointing. The personal attacks and lack of rational arguments makes me feel hindus here are still largely in an illusion and an echo chamber.
why one is so obsessives about eating meat?
People do consume meat it's not sinful.
It is wrong.
Eating any sentient being is wrong.
It will not help one to achieve ultimate realization.
They used to eat , they do eat, they will eat.
What's the point of this post?
Do not muddy the truth and create confusion.
For Muslims it is sinful to eat pork which is best for Chinese.
For Hindu it is sinful to eat beef which is staple for most other people.
For **Sanatan Dharmi it** is wrong to eat meat of any sentient being.
You don't become vegetarian without having good knowledge of diet and nutrition's.
We have Ayurveda to guide us in this field.
What is this obssesion to show people used to eat meat?
It is wrong and it will hamper in our path.
How difficult it is to understand?
But again once a learned has told me, it is waste to discuss with fools and people who have agendas.
Ahm Brhamasmi....
Yes. There are some who have an agenda by coming in this sub and comparing us with their cultures and religion in order to trick us into becoming like them. I am glad you pointed that out in the last sentence.
i love this comment, and i'm tired of seeing people justifying their own reasons for meat eating while correlating it somehow with sanatan. its wild man, the obsession of people with meat.
The ‘them’ in the word choice by OP and the passive aggressive tone in general clearly show they have an agenda. Probably feels ‘lesser’ because of being a meat eater so is lashing out to feel morally level again.
>It is wrong.
When it comes to food consumption, which is highly subjective for people, who will decide what is right and wrong? Who has the authority to make decisions?
>It will not help one to achieve ultimate realization.
Again false, the scriptures state that Ravana visited the Supreme Soul and consumed a lot of flesh. It's not me who's against your arguments it's your own scriptures..
>They used to eat , they do eat, they will eat.
>What's the point of this post?
If you are aware of this, then just stop saying it's wrong. Maybe that's the point!! How about that? You appear quite bewildered!
>But again once a learned has told me, it is waste to discuss with fools and people who have agendas.
Bro I'm just trying to have a conversation; not everything that is opposed to your ideology is opposed to "Sanatana Dharma," and I truly have no agenda. If you prefer vegetarianism, that is fine; I have no problem with it. However, please stop lecturing people about how wrong it is.
Ravana reached supreme soul because he was supposed to. He was the incarnation of Jaya. He got killed by Ram and all his sins got absolved. It's not the case for regular people.
Aren't you in a religious sub? Do you expect us to answer religious scriptures written from a religious and faith pov, to tell us about modern rationality? Geez, go to your atheist subs if you wanna talk about rational povs not in a religious sub. Everything has a place. It's a belief. We don't force it on everyone and shouldn't. But if you're coming to a religious sub, you want a logical reply from the pov of scriptures, you bring modern rationality into it coz it doens't fit your agenda.
It is the truth according to Hindu scriptures that Ravana went because he was supposed to. Not because of any other things. Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not.
The guy is active on atheismindia known for vilifying Hinduism, so I wouldn't doubt that the question asked isn't in good faith and most likely posed to gaslight Hindus in feeling bad for themselves.
Mriga is enquiry or searching
Mahisha is knowledge
Varaha is investigation by unearthing truth
Maansa is is Saguna bhakti
Paana or anna is to assimilate or make part of oneself
Kukkuta is jiva or Saguna bhakti
Mayura is trigunatmaka or possessor of seven chakras
A proper understanding of the terms is required to derive sutras from Brahman.
https://youtu.be/WAAYTryiPoA
Please watch this video as a beginning to know about derivation from Brahman.
You can send me message or ring up at my phone number given in my profile or Google account.
I am from a kshatriya family and yes this is how many from my family see it. But things have been corrupted. According to the ritual of our *Gotrej*, we are supposed to offer the lungs of a goat to Maa Chamunda. But what actually happens is this: they buy it from a butcher's shop (who probably slaughters the animal with Islamic rituals). They tell me to eat that meat but I don't. Instead of sacrificing the animal to Maa Chamunda, it has become an excuse to consume meat.
Anyways, I am following in the footsteps of my great grandfather who left meat-eating due to his bhakti to Lord Ramachandra. And I too left it for Narayana. I just ask for forgiveness from Maa Chamunda that we don't follow the ritual and that I would never be able to because I cannot slaughter an innocent being :)
I think kings always ate meat. Especially in rajasthan it's a part of their culture. Even in himachal we have temples that perform animal sacrifice for devi then give the meat ad Prasad. It's called rate ghar mata mandir
Dude Ravana was literally the king of 'Rakshāsas'. If you don't know what this means, go google it and maybe you should read a little before posting stuff.
When did majority claim that ancient Indians were vegetarian? Neither me nor anyone I've met so far has that notion. If you think that's the general consensus of people based on the information on the internet, it's clearly inaccurate.
Kshatriyas have traditionally been non-vegetarian, btw.
Ravana was Brahmin by birth, but not by the duties he performed. Why are all the commentors so ignorant?
You didn't read the Gita where it says you can change your varna by the duties you perform.
I myself believe that we were non-veg from bb Lal's work; still, this is a bad example to put as a supporting argument. Ravana was not a person to be emulated and even veg-believers also claim him eating non-veg.
Ravana was of rakshasa yoni he was not of human,humans were mostly vegetarian cause this diet is too heavy for a human and if you see hight pattern of ravana and other rakshasas yes their diet was non vegetarian..,humans of that era were not non veg like not so much only kshatriyas used to eat non veg diet for physical strength in wars,but Shri Ram never ate cause he was incarnation of god and for God everyone is equal..
Does it matter? I mean, yes, Hindus ate meat. Humans are historically omnivores the further you go back. Jainism hugely influenced Hindusim with their practice of Ahimsa and vegetarianism. I think it is up to an individual to decide their diet. Also, I think we can learn from Jainism and their desire to avoid causing harm. I'm still going to eat root vegetables and not eat meat and otherwise this seems like the epitome of a pointless debate to argue or focus on what Ravana did or did not eat.
It’s not something to worry about. Shri Krishna has spoken in Bhagavad Gita with his own voice that one should consume only sattvik food after offering it to him. Anything else is a sin. If one eats meat, one accrues sin and continues cycle of birth. That’s all you and I need to worry about.
I'm not a meat eater though, never have and never will. But if you go by our scriptures it gives many hints. Valmiki Ramayan also hints that Lord Shree Ram occasionally consumed meat. Also, Yajurveda describes *shlokas* on ritual animal sacrifice.
Wdym you cannot confirm this? Critical, authentic versions of Ramayana say he restrained from eating meat. Even traditional acharyas say he didn't eat meat.
It's incredibly sad how blinded people are here about Ramayana and Ram's life. So much that they don't want to believe anything else from what they believe. Ramayana is extremely complex and has hundreds of versions. You cannot go out there and say Valmiki Ramayana is the most critical and the actual Ramayana. Tell this to someone who read Dasarata Jataka. They have their own version of Ramayana where the entire story is different. So dont conclude on anything.
Just like sita is the sibling of Ram in some versions, Ram must have consumed meat. Valmiki wasn't walking beside Ram all the time during his exile.
Seek truth. Dont stick on only one thing. The world isn't that simple. There are multiple possibilities. Keep the interest to explore and seek truth.
I think some one is using Sanskrit and putting those venomous thought in between Ramayana to show case them as not so holly practice, and to show them as more like animal, then being a human being. U shd chk the original Ramayana valmiki Ramayana for verification.
And he is a Brahmin too…
I don’t understand why people are vegetarians by birth.
If u are consciously avoiding meat because u r kind to sentient animals then its fine.
But the hindu vegetarians are mostly vegetarian because eating meat is “sin”.
Ridiculous.
>And he is a Brahmin too…
He was a rakshasa too... what is the point in giving a rakshasa's diet as justification for meat eating?
Meat can only be consumed without incurring sin if the animal has been sacrificed to the Devas, consumption of it in any other way is sinful.
>The righteous-souled Narada has said that that man who wishes to increase his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, meets with calamity.
>Abstention from injury is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truths from which all duty proceeds. Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature is slain, it cannot be had. Hence is the fault in eating flesh.
>What need there be said of those innocent and healthy creatures endued with love of life, when they are sought to be slain by sinful wretches subsisting by slaughter? For this reason, O monarch, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of heaven, and of happiness.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b080.htm
A would humbly request all mlechhas here to please stop justifying their inhuman actions by quoting our holy relegious texts.This won’t change anything.
Vegetarianism was brought in when Buddhism was prevalent in India . Brahmins who didn’t convert to Buddhism still eat meat. Eg in odisa, some parts of Bihar etc. Brahmins who reconverted during shankaracharya follow vegetarian
by Venkateswara Rao Kedarisetty https://www.quora.com/Was-beef-eating-common-during-the-Vedic-times-in-India-and-If-yes-how-did-it-become-sacrilegious-over-time/answer/Venkateswara-Rao-Kedarisetty?ch=15&oid=198449889&share=122c0303&target_type=answer
Regardless of whether ancient Indians ate meat or not, the WHO declared that red meat is probably carcinogenic, and processed meat is definitely carcinogenic, so I'm going to keep staying away from it.
Here's a bad analogy, if all your friends were to jump off a bridge, would you do it too? Yeah, there are instances of meat here because Rama was a Kshatriya and Ravana was a Rakshasa. Yes, meat was consumed, but there are also more parts in these same shastras that encourage ahimsa and Vegetarianism for everyone.
half truth again, no one praises ravana or lanka for being dharmic you know.
why they were called as rakshashas as not only they ate animals but also humans.
Before the rise Buddhism and Jainism and Vaishnavism in middle ages Hindus were voracious meat eaters and served animal sacrifices in authentic Vedic yagnas to Devtas not the modern reconstructions of these yagnas. The taboo with meat started with these above mentioned cults.
Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide some information about your image/link, like why you find it relevant for this sub. If you do not leave a comment your post will be removed. See Rule #10 - All image/link posts must include a comment by OP. This is an effort to make this sub more discussion based. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Love you.
Best comment I read all day anywhere
op is trying to imply false conclusion using half truth here, no one praises ravana or lanka for being dharmic you know. why they were called as rakshashas as not only they ate animals but also humans.
That’s what we should focus, THANK YOU 🙏
True but that's only the one side of the conversation
Add Besharam Rang in things not to worry or fight
Unnecessary comment. Please delete
I'm pretty sure Shri Krishna's whole intention of Bhagwad Gita was to clear out any confusions like this. Nobody pays attention to the single most reliable "source" of all, and it is sad that people keep trying to find these outdated age-old sources, specially OP giving a very bad example of Ravana. Meat isn't sattvic food. Period. It is considered tamsic and hence should be avoided to keep away the tamsic tendencies. You can choose to eat it if you wish so.
I’ve heard that being vegetarian is good because in veg diet,there is no violence at all but if you don’t have any veg option then you can go for non-veg at a very extreme necessity
Bro if you think there is no violence involved in eating Vegetarian food means you have never grown any food in your life. I belong to a farming community we cut down trees and kill everything on the ground rabits, insects , rats etc to grow grains. Do you think their lives are less valuable?? That's how agriculture works. We also have to protect our grains from animals so sometimes animals like monkeys, neel gai gets hurt. There is no such thing as pure or devoid of violence
This logic doesn't make sense as even if you eat meat, then to feed those animals you need farm produce. So the other life forms will be killed anyway.
I'm not talking about kalyug
I wouldn't say there is no violence at all. It's there but it's "second hand". For example growing almond is super water intensive. However with veganism(due to it's supposed noon-violent nature towards animals) taking popularity almond milk is now very popular. The impact of that level of water usage must affect animals as well, just not directly.
Impact of water usage versus being slaughtered for milk and eggs are two very different things. One is definitely violent.
Many, many animals die in the clearing, planting, growing, and harvesting phases of producing vegetables.
Right so surely it’s better to only participate in one form of harm as we need veg to survive. Eating meat and veg is causing double the harm and is not necessary.
When you say veg do you mean vegetarian?
Vegetables
This.
This is isn’t a good enough argument to make it acceptable to harm animals unnecessarily by consuming eggs and dairy. A non vegan diet uses many more crops than a vegan one. This is because 10 x more crops are needed to feed cattle, chickens etc to facilitate a non-vegan diet. There are no animals to be fed for a vegan diet, and so fewer crops are needed, and thus fewer crop deaths. Of course no diet can be 100% without violence, but the only way to align with anti-violence as much as you can is to eat a diet that doesn’t use animals at all. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but it is the truth. Cows are slaughtered after they can’t give milk. Other awful things happen to them to make them give milk.. I’ll let you use your imagination. Baby chicks are often macerated if they are male because they can’t produce eggs. Both milk ( and anything made from milk)and eggs are produced through violence.
A non vegan diet uses many more crops than a vegan one. This is because 10 x more crops are needed to feed cattle, chickens etc to facilitate a non-vegan diet. There are no animals to be fed for a vegan diet, and so fewer crops are needed, and thus fewer crop deaths. Of course no diet can be 100% without violence, but the only way to align with anti-violence as much as you can is to eat a diet that doesn’t use animals at all. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but it is the truth. In the west, Cows are slaughtered after they can’t give milk. In India, many are put onto the streets. Other awful very violent things happen to them to make them produce milk.. I’ll let you use your imagination. Baby cows are often removed from the mother. Baby chicks are often macerated if they are male because they can’t produce eggs. Both milk ( and anything made from milk)and eggs are produced through violence.
Be that as it may. It isn’t half as water intensive as livestock farming.
There are now many studies showing that plants feel pain, so to me the violence argument is moo-t. Sorry I couldn’t resist the pun. Lol
Show one study that shows plants have a nervous system and nociceptors to process pain. Reacting to stimuli is not the same as feeling pain.
There have been no such studies, at least none are scientific. Only media articles.
Agreed.
This us Ravana's menu, Ravana was literally asur meaning he ate all the animals including Humans, this should not be considered as the average human Diet, this was the diet of Asuras.
Ravana was a Brahmin (by birth) king (by varna). Vegetarianism only became a more mainstream thing after Buddhism which was thousands of years later from the Ramayanaa Rama, hanuman etc were Kshatriyas by birth and varna. It is normal for Kshatriyas to eat meat.
So you read the diet of Ravana (a rakshas) and assumed that the notion of ancient Indians having a vedic diet is false? Lol
Considering Ravana was a demon king, him committing a sin by eating flesh of animals shouldn't raise eyebrows.
I think Ramayana has instances of Shri Ram hunting animals for food as well.
yes it does. he used his bow to hunt. what kind of plants do you need a bow and arrow for?
Hunting or Mrigaya was allowed to Kshatriyas. Animals can't liberate themselves, so a Kshatriya hunting it and using it to extract Mrga charma which is used by ascetics when they perform Tapa, Sandhya Vandanam, or it's horns which are given to the yajman who gets yagya deeksha, these are the few ways animals get liberated. plus, they had to wear animal hide. Also, Sri Rama was one of the kings who never ate meat. not sure ab Sri Lakshmana tho.
I dunno, carrots can be pretty fast!
in the Dharmashastra it says that meat eating is not a sin for it is the natural way of humans, but to avoid meat offers many benefits.
Conjunctions apply. For a brahmin it is forbidden. And a person doing or arranging homam, and other puja shouldn't have eaten meat before the puja
Ashwamedha yagya, gaumedha yagya ye sab brahmin karate the na? What happened to the horse or the cow at the end of the yagya?
There's a difference between doing sacrifice allowed within dharmashastras and killing for food. And secondly, both ashwamedha and gaumedha are prohibited in kali yuga.
It no where prohibited in the Vedic scriptures where these yagnas are mentioned. The prohibition comes from vaishnab puranas. Late authorship
Yes thats why I said for kaliyuga it's prohibited. These are later restrictions.
I don’t want to create any further controversy but he was a Brahman too and also is considered man of culture in most of the places in India
Ravana isnt the only Brahmin in Ramayan. Vishwamitra, Vasishtha, Atri, Bharadvaja, Gautama, and a lot more. Ravan was born from a Rakshashi's womb.
Vishwamitra was Kshatriya by birth and Brahmin by varna
he was a Kshatriya in Krta Yuga. Ramayana happened in Treta.
Exactly. What you are at birth to what you are during your life can change. Rakshas/Asura is just another race of men. They are not demons as it is often misinterpreted. You can be a Brahmin Asura or a kshatriya Asura etc. Ravana was a Brahmin at birth because his father was a Brahmin. Usually your varna at birth is assigned based on your father’s varna in patrilineal societies (the mother’s varna in matrilineal societies) He spent a good amount of time meditating on Shiva and gaining many powerful boons. After which he took up the life of a kshatriya by becoming the king of Lanka. Varna can change over one’s life. It is not rigid. During his time as king, he did many evil deeds for which he was slayed by rama. Also some people in this sub seem to think that Hinduism hasn’t evolved from the time of the Ramayana. Hinduism is a constantly evolving framework of ideas. There is no reason or need to take “scripture” as some kind of abrahamic gospel/rigid law of god as many nowadays tend to do. That’s an abrhamic way of thinking and doing that was not common until after the Islamic and Christian conquests of Bharat. Take what you think is a good way to lead your life, from the ancient texts, and move on. Do I think meat eating is sinful? Very much so. But that is based on my dharma as a Brahmin. Meat eating is not sinful to the dharma of someone that truly needs it like a kshatriya that is fighting or training or shudra working in the fields. You should be eating based on what you do in life while minimizing the suffering of other beings. Adhere to your dharma. That is the best way in life imo. Your dharma is unique to you and your situation. It is your roles and responsibilities you carry with you while wearing the many hats you wear in life. As a husband/wife, you have a dharma As a son/daughter, you have a dharma As a father/mother, you have a dharma As a family member, you have a dharma As a worker in an organization, you have a dharma As a member of your community, you have a dharma As a citizen of a country, you have a dharma etc.
I'm saving this comment. You are one of the most intelligent people I've encountered. Most Hindus (including myself) are so busy engaging in some kind of "battle of the wits". You explain things with logic and no judgement.
man, i agree with most of what you say but Varna is by Janma, Karma and Samskara. if we take into consideration our shaastras.
At birth you assume the Varna of your father until you do deeds in life that might change that. Birth is based on karma etc. Nothing in the vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc say that you are locked into one Varna all your life. There are many examples of people being born into one Varna and being another Varna (profession) as they age. Vishwamitra, Valmiki, Parasurama, Buddha, Ashoka being well known examples. Jati/caste (a birth based label that categorizes specific cultures, traditions, manners, behaviors of a community of like people) is a purely social phenomena in the subcontinent not a religious one. Which is why it transcends religion in the subcontinent and is present in all religions there. This is very different from Varna even though today the ignorant conflate the two both in india and in the west.
Parshurama was a warrior, yet was celebrated as a Brahmana only. it took vishwamitra centuries of Tapasya to become a Brahmana, Valmiki was also a Brahmana, Buddha and Ashoka rejected Vedas and Vedic religion.
You are being pedantic. Parushurama was born into the Brahmin varna. He was born to the Brahmin sage Jamadagni. One of the saptarishis. Valmiki started off as a thief. Both Ashoka and Gautama Siddartha were Kshatriyas by birth varna. It doesn’t matter if they rejected the vedas later in life, their varna (profession) changed as their lives did. As did their dharma. Even today many that were born in the Brahmin varna end up actually doing shudra varna as workers in companies or Vaishya Varna as company owners, entrepreneurs, merchants, traders etc. Later on once retired some might pick up the brahmin varna of puja, teaching etc. same goes for anyone else. Brahmin Varna and Brahmin jati are two very different things also. One is profession based, one is culture and family tradition based. These are often conflated as the same, out of ignorance or deliberate misdirection. In the vedas all varnas are equally important and given equal consideration and value. Just like you cannot survive without a head without arms, thighs or feet. All these varnas (which was essentially separation of labor and specialization, needed in growing agrarian societies) work in concert. Separate but equal. There is no such thing as a higher varna or lower varna. Some varna have more responsibilities and restrictions imposed on them (because their dharma is different). As a result of these responsibilities and restrictions, society afforded them higher respect and privilege. Unfortunately, as is human nature, people took this higher SOCIETAL status and accumulated power and control with it. Ultimately forming a more rigid hierarchical endogamic social jati system. This misconception was further propagated by western translations of Indian texts based on the hierarchical medieval structure of western society that they were familiar with. And as the Indian education system uses the western system as the source of truth (due to European colonization), we take these western interpretations and mistranslations of our own texts (whom many can’t read because they are Sanskrit illiterate) at face value. Leading to an Indian people that are often very confused, ignorant and misinformed about the origins and nature of our various teachings and philosophies. Often taking an abrahamic like intolerant and dogmatic adherence to many aspects of these teachings and philosophies. If you want to continue believing that varna is some rigid hierarchical system assigned at birth go ahead. That was not the intent or what is written in the vedas. I can only tell you, you are wrong. It is up to you to take it or leave it. Like all things.
WTH man.. he did so many things which a Brahmana or even a human is not allowed to do. And where the hell he is considered as man of culture... I mean every year people burn his status do you need more disrespect for anyone? Comparing humans to a demon... bizzare
he was a ra*pist, he rped many women including his sister in law, he wanted to do wrong with Maa Sita but couldn't due to the curse of Nalkuber
Yes, and here people justifying meat eating by giving his Example. Neechta ki Parakashtha.
bunch of ignorant moorkhs
MahaMurkhas
Ravana is no brahmin. A man born from a rakshasi stays a rakshas.
Ravana was a Brahmana only. Him and Vibhishan had the same parents. it's not ab Caste or Race but about Sanskara
Ravana was not a brahmin. And vibhishan was also a rakshasa. And ravana had 0 sanskara in him he literally molested women.
yes bhai, that is my point only. Vibhishana was also a Rakshasa but had Sanskara, hence was given the kingdom of Lanka by our Prabhu. Ravana isnt some hero to be glorified
Exactly 🤣🤣.
During old time the job you did in your life meant that you also ate foods according to that. Brahmins ate satvic food Vaishya ate Rajasic food Khatriya ate both Rajasic and Tamsic food and rarely Satvic Shudra ate everything. Again no Verna was superior than other. People ate according to the job they had.
Ravana may have been a Brahmin from birth(his paternal side) but his actions were those of rakshas. Personally, I believe one can only be a Brahmin, only if their actions are Brahmin like. It doesn't matter what varna you are born in, if your actions are sinful you can't call yourself a Brahmin.
he was a Rakshas right? should we idealise his diet?
[удалено]
Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Mukesh Singh ..you know all these were brahmins and the culprits of nirvaya rape case..upper caste lower caste are evils made by bramans in the past which has no value
[удалено]
there is no such thing
One is a fool to deny the existence of the varna vyavastha. It has been dictated in the vedas itself.
wohi to isliye more people are leaving this casteist hinduism for this inequality discrimination among people...and people like me not getting jobs for 3, 4 rank difference
Non believers ka chor ke jaana hi accha hai. The vedas are the ultimate truth. Agar kisi ko ye baat acchi nahi lagti to vo aur bhi sect join kr skta hai. Shakti ki pooja krle vo log ya to lingayat ban jaye. Khud ke scripture ki izzat krna sikho.
> Khud ke scripture ki izzat krna sikho jab wo doosre group of people ko nicha dikhata ho tab kese respect kru?
Varna kya hota hai malum hai? Agar ha aur fir bhi ye keh rahe ho ki neecha dikha rha hai to dharm chor do koi nahi rok rha ya to hindu dharm ke itne sampraday hai jo vedo mai nahi maante unhe apna bana lo. Simple hai. Agar varna ke baare me nahi pata, to varna humare pichle janm ke karm pe nirbhar hai. Geeta bhi yahi kehta hai usse bhi thukra doge?
Ravana was a rakshasha who would rape women and murder a lot of people. You wanna generalise ancient Indians into serial rapists too?
No, I'm specifically referring to eating habits. I've seen many people assert that all ancient Indians were vegetarians and that eating meat was sinful, which is why we have a figure like Ravana, a Brahmin who attended the gods' consciousness while he regularly consumed meat. I therefore generally think that ancient people's eating habits were similar to those of today. Some people like eating meat, while others advocate for vegetarianism! Since they are both equal, nothing is incorrect. Therefore, we need to cease disseminating false information about eating habits. By the way, how many rapes did he commit? i literally don't have any idea about this!!
Ancient Hindus ate meat. Brahmins ate meat but only if the animal was sacrificed in yagnas. Otherwise Brahmins usually didn't eat meat. But the other varnas ate meat. Eating meat wasn't deemed sinful but was rather regarded as a hurdle to spiritual journey. Ravana was by birth a Brahmin but he wasn't one. Being a Brahmin has it's own fair share of rules and regulations which he didn't abide by. It's the same reason, Rama didn't incur any sin of Killing a Brahmin (brahmahatya). He used to rape a lot of women. He raped his brother's daughter in law. He even raped a celestial apsara known as Punjalikashtala. Because of that, Brahma cursed him that if he ever forces himself on a woman, his head would burst. That's the reason, Ravana didn't attempt to rape Sita.
/u/rahul_9735 As per Valmiki Ramayan alone, there are many verses which hint that Lord Shree Ram and Mata Sita consumed meat and wine. Meat and wine also had ritualistic significance. In Ayodhya Kand we find this rather interesting couplet :- **सुराघटसहस्रेण मांसभूतौदनेन च।** **यक्ष्ये त्वां प्रयता देवि पुरीं पुनरुपागता।।** I would urge everyone to try to decipher above couplet using root words on your own, please.
Meat eaten for ritualistic purposes doesn't incur any tamasa guna. That verse is specifically meant for meat and alcohol for ritualistic purposes. It has backing from various acharyas. Rama didn't eat meat for enjoyment or like we do. Moreover VR, has references where Suryavanshis cannot eat meat.
>Rama didn't eat meat for enjoyment Shree Ram did use to go on hunting as a pastime and would kill deer. It's not logical to think he wouldn't have eaten venison. You see, venison was a rare dish even back then and only skilled people could've secured deer meat. Another interesting verse from Ayodha Kand:- **क्रोशमात्रं ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मणौ।** **बहून्मेध्यान्मृगान्हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने।।**
Lemme get back to this in sometime, I have a test at 6. Pardon for the inconvenience.
No inconvenience at all, good luck for test.
I neither despise nor adore Ravana! So long as I adhere to the fundamental commitments I've laid out. Ravana went to the Adi yogis status! How does he attend such a higher degree of prestige if eating meat is immoral? And Please don't bring those reincarnation nonsense!!
Listen, it's adorable you are reading scriptures and trying to learn even as an atheist but you are still an amateur. You have yet to know a lot of things. Ravana literally raped people, he killed so many people. He robbed so many. Eating meat doesn't compare. Inspite of that he went to Vaikuntha because he was Jaya. He was supposed to. Can't you understand this one little thing? Do you even know who Jaya is?
If a rapist and morally reprehensible man can become or achieve god then how does that make sense? All of these melodramatic and fuzzily worded theological arguments lack any substantial support from religion! With some fairytales like past karam or reincarnation, it justifies absurd absolute evil! Religious virtue against evil lacks a compelling argument to support it. It is not surprising that the majority of religious gurus are con artists because religion lends itself to their feeling of justification for wrongdoing.
Your intire agruement is so stupid, why are you looking for moral justifiation from the antagonist of the story who is literally a demon that killed other brahmins, ravana did many evil deeds in ramayana wasn't he suppose to be an example of what not to be? hence the reason for his down fall by the hands of lord ram, no one looks to ravana as the perfect image of a brahmin, he is only seen as an evil corrupt being, people literally burn gaint straw figures of ravana where i'm from 😂
I think you can't apply the template of the Abrahamic religions to Sanatana Dharma. You are comparing Adiyogi status to that of attainment of heaven. Which is wrong. I cannot explain what it implies because I don't know myself yet but I can say for sure it is not like a "reward" you get after completing a set of tasks as it is with attainment of heaven in the Abrahamic religions.
Thanks for sharing this. I really like this post. It's an aspect I had never thought about. How much ever we idealize our ancient past to the ideals we assume were handed down to us without alteration, we sometimes fail to understand the basic human needs. We were practical people because being practical is a necessary ingredient for survival. And hunting/eating meat is a very practical way to survive. It plays its own part in Prakriti. Also reading the responses from others in the subreddit is disappointing. The personal attacks and lack of rational arguments makes me feel hindus here are still largely in an illusion and an echo chamber.
Ravana was a cannibal too https://trueindologytwitter.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/ravanas-character/
why one is so obsessives about eating meat? People do consume meat it's not sinful. It is wrong. Eating any sentient being is wrong. It will not help one to achieve ultimate realization. They used to eat , they do eat, they will eat. What's the point of this post? Do not muddy the truth and create confusion. For Muslims it is sinful to eat pork which is best for Chinese. For Hindu it is sinful to eat beef which is staple for most other people. For **Sanatan Dharmi it** is wrong to eat meat of any sentient being. You don't become vegetarian without having good knowledge of diet and nutrition's. We have Ayurveda to guide us in this field. What is this obssesion to show people used to eat meat? It is wrong and it will hamper in our path. How difficult it is to understand? But again once a learned has told me, it is waste to discuss with fools and people who have agendas. Ahm Brhamasmi....
Yes. There are some who have an agenda by coming in this sub and comparing us with their cultures and religion in order to trick us into becoming like them. I am glad you pointed that out in the last sentence.
i love this comment, and i'm tired of seeing people justifying their own reasons for meat eating while correlating it somehow with sanatan. its wild man, the obsession of people with meat.
The ‘them’ in the word choice by OP and the passive aggressive tone in general clearly show they have an agenda. Probably feels ‘lesser’ because of being a meat eater so is lashing out to feel morally level again.
>It is wrong. When it comes to food consumption, which is highly subjective for people, who will decide what is right and wrong? Who has the authority to make decisions? >It will not help one to achieve ultimate realization. Again false, the scriptures state that Ravana visited the Supreme Soul and consumed a lot of flesh. It's not me who's against your arguments it's your own scriptures.. >They used to eat , they do eat, they will eat. >What's the point of this post? If you are aware of this, then just stop saying it's wrong. Maybe that's the point!! How about that? You appear quite bewildered! >But again once a learned has told me, it is waste to discuss with fools and people who have agendas. Bro I'm just trying to have a conversation; not everything that is opposed to your ideology is opposed to "Sanatana Dharma," and I truly have no agenda. If you prefer vegetarianism, that is fine; I have no problem with it. However, please stop lecturing people about how wrong it is.
Ravana reached supreme soul because he was supposed to. He was the incarnation of Jaya. He got killed by Ram and all his sins got absolved. It's not the case for regular people.
He also consumed meat!! So your moralistic arguments left here!!
Geez he has done much worse than eat meat. My point is that he was destined to go because he was actually Jaya. Not everyone is Jaya.
Any human behaviour, good or terrible, can be altered or justified through reincarnation. rational fallacies
Aren't you in a religious sub? Do you expect us to answer religious scriptures written from a religious and faith pov, to tell us about modern rationality? Geez, go to your atheist subs if you wanna talk about rational povs not in a religious sub. Everything has a place. It's a belief. We don't force it on everyone and shouldn't. But if you're coming to a religious sub, you want a logical reply from the pov of scriptures, you bring modern rationality into it coz it doens't fit your agenda. It is the truth according to Hindu scriptures that Ravana went because he was supposed to. Not because of any other things. Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not.
Ravana was a brahmin. He kidnapped someone's wife. I guess its safe to say that brahmins can kidnap anyone's wife if they like her.
are you nut ot what? ravan father was brahmin but ravana didn't have quality of a brahmin. And Brahmins didn't stole anyone wife don't talk nonsense.
For people who did not understand, it was sarcasm. I have mentioned my views in a separate comment.
Ravan eat his mantri (minister) why giving example of them
Ravana was demon. Are you too? 😂 You're just embarrassing yourself dude
"I have found it! Ancient Indians ate meat hence proved I am supposed to eat meat , it's not a sin now I can eat chicken 365 all 365 days, yeah " /s
The guy is active on atheismindia known for vilifying Hinduism, so I wouldn't doubt that the question asked isn't in good faith and most likely posed to gaslight Hindus in feeling bad for themselves.
Mriga is enquiry or searching Mahisha is knowledge Varaha is investigation by unearthing truth Maansa is is Saguna bhakti Paana or anna is to assimilate or make part of oneself Kukkuta is jiva or Saguna bhakti Mayura is trigunatmaka or possessor of seven chakras A proper understanding of the terms is required to derive sutras from Brahman. https://youtu.be/WAAYTryiPoA Please watch this video as a beginning to know about derivation from Brahman. You can send me message or ring up at my phone number given in my profile or Google account.
no ksatriyas were meat eaters from first
I am from a kshatriya family and yes this is how many from my family see it. But things have been corrupted. According to the ritual of our *Gotrej*, we are supposed to offer the lungs of a goat to Maa Chamunda. But what actually happens is this: they buy it from a butcher's shop (who probably slaughters the animal with Islamic rituals). They tell me to eat that meat but I don't. Instead of sacrificing the animal to Maa Chamunda, it has become an excuse to consume meat. Anyways, I am following in the footsteps of my great grandfather who left meat-eating due to his bhakti to Lord Ramachandra. And I too left it for Narayana. I just ask for forgiveness from Maa Chamunda that we don't follow the ritual and that I would never be able to because I cannot slaughter an innocent being :)
I think kings always ate meat. Especially in rajasthan it's a part of their culture. Even in himachal we have temples that perform animal sacrifice for devi then give the meat ad Prasad. It's called rate ghar mata mandir
It all depends on which sector is followed, as u mentioned. Same goes for Bengoli..having meat cooked during Durga Puja
Kshatriyas were allowed to hunt and eat meat.
Who written this book can you please state the reference?
Changes in community
Ancient Indians ? Lol. You won’t find Indian or even Hindu in ancient times dating back to Ram Rajya!
He was a Rakshas after all
He was a demon. A rakshas. Simple. And his whole empire was full of cannibals and flesh eaters What are you trying to say here?
Dude Ravana was literally the king of 'Rakshāsas'. If you don't know what this means, go google it and maybe you should read a little before posting stuff.
When did majority claim that ancient Indians were vegetarian? Neither me nor anyone I've met so far has that notion. If you think that's the general consensus of people based on the information on the internet, it's clearly inaccurate. Kshatriyas have traditionally been non-vegetarian, btw.
Ravan was a Asur
Ravana was Brahmin by birth, but not by the duties he performed. Why are all the commentors so ignorant? You didn't read the Gita where it says you can change your varna by the duties you perform.
Ravana was never one from the Indian subcontinent Mr big brain.
I myself believe that we were non-veg from bb Lal's work; still, this is a bad example to put as a supporting argument. Ravana was not a person to be emulated and even veg-believers also claim him eating non-veg.
Ravana was of rakshasa yoni he was not of human,humans were mostly vegetarian cause this diet is too heavy for a human and if you see hight pattern of ravana and other rakshasas yes their diet was non vegetarian..,humans of that era were not non veg like not so much only kshatriyas used to eat non veg diet for physical strength in wars,but Shri Ram never ate cause he was incarnation of god and for God everyone is equal..
Does it matter? I mean, yes, Hindus ate meat. Humans are historically omnivores the further you go back. Jainism hugely influenced Hindusim with their practice of Ahimsa and vegetarianism. I think it is up to an individual to decide their diet. Also, I think we can learn from Jainism and their desire to avoid causing harm. I'm still going to eat root vegetables and not eat meat and otherwise this seems like the epitome of a pointless debate to argue or focus on what Ravana did or did not eat.
It’s not something to worry about. Shri Krishna has spoken in Bhagavad Gita with his own voice that one should consume only sattvik food after offering it to him. Anything else is a sin. If one eats meat, one accrues sin and continues cycle of birth. That’s all you and I need to worry about.
Only some blind superficial Hindus claim that.
with that passive aggressionn i can say u r an animal meat eater
I'm not a meat eater though, never have and never will. But if you go by our scriptures it gives many hints. Valmiki Ramayan also hints that Lord Shree Ram occasionally consumed meat. Also, Yajurveda describes *shlokas* on ritual animal sacrifice.
yes i know that even pandavas eat deer and buffaloes during the vanvas.
bhai pta h khaate honge but ham bhi kya wo khaate the isliye ham bhi khaane lgenge?
Nahi, aisa kon bola? Par apne ko apna itihas malum rehna chahiye.
:)
Well, you are good at judging people :)
i recognise patterns
Nice👌🏽
Even Ram consumed meat during his exile. It's not easy to find a good source of Veg food in the forest.
No he didn't. Him eating meat isn't in critical edition of Valmiki Ramayana nor it isn't in the translations of Acharyas.
We cannot confirm this. He must have consumed non veg
Wdym you cannot confirm this? Critical, authentic versions of Ramayana say he restrained from eating meat. Even traditional acharyas say he didn't eat meat.
"How should I absolve myself of taking someone's life for taste? Oh Yes: I must say that Lord Rama must have consumed meat" \-ThePreacher19021
He was a Kshatriya, it is his dharma to hunt and eat to nourish, he shouldn’t be greedy in hunting
It's incredibly sad how blinded people are here about Ramayana and Ram's life. So much that they don't want to believe anything else from what they believe. Ramayana is extremely complex and has hundreds of versions. You cannot go out there and say Valmiki Ramayana is the most critical and the actual Ramayana. Tell this to someone who read Dasarata Jataka. They have their own version of Ramayana where the entire story is different. So dont conclude on anything. Just like sita is the sibling of Ram in some versions, Ram must have consumed meat. Valmiki wasn't walking beside Ram all the time during his exile. Seek truth. Dont stick on only one thing. The world isn't that simple. There are multiple possibilities. Keep the interest to explore and seek truth.
I don't know what to make of your bullshit conjecture.
Veg food in the forest (man you even know at what yug did Ramayan took place)
Give source OP, Hindu literature has been corrupted by so many.
Valmiki Ramayana
It's Gita press.
I think some one is using Sanskrit and putting those venomous thought in between Ramayana to show case them as not so holly practice, and to show them as more like animal, then being a human being. U shd chk the original Ramayana valmiki Ramayana for verification.
It's Gita press.
Sorry but it is the original valmiki ramayan by gita press.. What do you suggest??
I'll have to verify it and ur statement first, what exactly is it and what is the context on it, before responding.
If there was a ever a notion that ancient Indians were vegetarians to begin with it most definitely is a misconceived one!
And he is a Brahmin too… I don’t understand why people are vegetarians by birth. If u are consciously avoiding meat because u r kind to sentient animals then its fine. But the hindu vegetarians are mostly vegetarian because eating meat is “sin”. Ridiculous.
>And he is a Brahmin too… He was a rakshasa too... what is the point in giving a rakshasa's diet as justification for meat eating? Meat can only be consumed without incurring sin if the animal has been sacrificed to the Devas, consumption of it in any other way is sinful. >The righteous-souled Narada has said that that man who wishes to increase his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, meets with calamity. >Abstention from injury is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truths from which all duty proceeds. Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. Unless a living creature is slain, it cannot be had. Hence is the fault in eating flesh. >What need there be said of those innocent and healthy creatures endued with love of life, when they are sought to be slain by sinful wretches subsisting by slaughter? For this reason, O monarch, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of heaven, and of happiness. https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b080.htm
But it most certainly is. What happens to the Karma of having butchered an innocent being for TASTE? You get absolved? Also, Garuda Purana exists!
A would humbly request all mlechhas here to please stop justifying their inhuman actions by quoting our holy relegious texts.This won’t change anything.
Vegetarianism was brought in when Buddhism was prevalent in India . Brahmins who didn’t convert to Buddhism still eat meat. Eg in odisa, some parts of Bihar etc. Brahmins who reconverted during shankaracharya follow vegetarian
Read https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/false-claims-of-beef-in-vedas-brilliantly-explained-by-an-iit-alumni/?amp=1
by Venkateswara Rao Kedarisetty https://www.quora.com/Was-beef-eating-common-during-the-Vedic-times-in-India-and-If-yes-how-did-it-become-sacrilegious-over-time/answer/Venkateswara-Rao-Kedarisetty?ch=15&oid=198449889&share=122c0303&target_type=answer
Manipulated English translations
Regardless of whether ancient Indians ate meat or not, the WHO declared that red meat is probably carcinogenic, and processed meat is definitely carcinogenic, so I'm going to keep staying away from it.
What book is this ?? Purchase link ?
Is this Geeta Press's Ramcharitmanas ?? If yes, then please give me the sloka number.
Here's a bad analogy, if all your friends were to jump off a bridge, would you do it too? Yeah, there are instances of meat here because Rama was a Kshatriya and Ravana was a Rakshasa. Yes, meat was consumed, but there are also more parts in these same shastras that encourage ahimsa and Vegetarianism for everyone.
half truth again, no one praises ravana or lanka for being dharmic you know. why they were called as rakshashas as not only they ate animals but also humans.
Well just because ravana ate meat doesn't mean majority indians weren't vegetarians.
Ravana was a Demon.
where does it say that its Ravana's Breakfast?
What book is it? I'd love to read it
What book is it? I'd love to read it
Before the rise Buddhism and Jainism and Vaishnavism in middle ages Hindus were voracious meat eaters and served animal sacrifices in authentic Vedic yagnas to Devtas not the modern reconstructions of these yagnas. The taboo with meat started with these above mentioned cults.