Spirituality and vegetarianism

[randomGuy]

Most of us are deeply respect Indian spiritual texts - bhakti yog, raj yog, Gyan yog and Karma yog and our spiritual gurus.

 

While most of them including osho, srila Prabhupada (founder of iskcon) etc. specifically promote vegetarianism, people do not know exactly what Budhha said (quoted below) . Turns out, buddha also promoted vegetarianism

 

Quote

1. The “Threefold Purity” Rule
Buddha allowed monks to eat meat under specific conditions:
A monk can eat meat if:
He did not see the animal being killed for him
He did not hear that it was killed for him
He does not suspect it was killed specifically for him
 This is called the principle of “threefold purity”.

2. Strongly Against Killing
Even though eating meat was allowed:
Buddha clearly condemned killing animals
Compassion toward all beings was central
This ties to Ahimsa (non-violence):
If you cause or demand killing → negative karma
If you passively receive food → less karmic impact (in his framework)

 

 

Spirituality makes you a vegetarian/vegan naturally imo. Not a strict rule but directionally as a society for sure.

 

If you respect India spirituality (rather spirituality in general), you should look at vegetarianism with respect and possibly something to strive for.

 

@Lone Wolf @Gollum

 

[Lone Wolf]

13 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Most of us are deeply respect Indian spiritual texts - bhakti yog, raj yog, Gyan yog and Karma yog and our spiritual gurus.

 

While most of them including osho, srila Prabhupada (founder of iskcon) etc. specifically promote vegetarianism, people do not know exactly what Budhha said (quoted below) . Turns out, buddha also promoted vegetarianism

 

 

 

Spirituality makes you a vegetarian/vegan naturally imo. Not a strict rule but directionally as a society for sure.

 

If you respect India spirituality (rather spirituality in general), you should look at vegetarianism with respect and possibly something to strive for.

 

@Lone Wolf @Gollum

 

Disagree as  Early Indian Vedic texts points us towards common occupations as animal husbandry, horse based culture similar to Indo Iranian culture and subsequently Shakti traditions and sacrifice based.. and it ofc involved meat eating.

We even find that stuff in Mahabharata period.

 

Vaishnav tradition and Jainism came much later to India and it effected the staple diet of the Indians.

 

Hindus were very much spiritual and consumed both non vegetarian as well vegetarian food.

Though weather conditions played its part.

[randomGuy]

India has a long tradition of spiritual teachers who encouraged or strongly supported vegetarianism, usually based on ahimsa (non-violence), purity of mind, and compassion. Here are some of the most influential ones:

Hindu Gurus & Saints
Adi Shankaracharya
Strongly emphasized sattvic (pure) diet, which is vegetarian
Saw food as influencing mental clarity and spiritual progress

 

Ramanujacharya
Promoted strict vegetarianism in the Sri Vaishnava tradition
Food offered to God (prasadam) must be vegetarian
Madhvacharya
Advocated vegetarianism as part of devotional purity
Udupi tradition is still strictly vegetarian

 

Swami Vivekananda
Personally not strictly vegetarian always, but:
Acknowledged vegetarianism as ideal for spiritual seekers
Linked it with control of mind and compassion

 

 

Jain & Buddhist Influences
Mahavira
One of the strongest advocates of vegetarianism in history
Absolute non-violence → strict vegan/vegetarian lifestyle
Gautama Buddha
Did not universally mandate vegetarianism
But promoted compassion toward all beings
Later Buddhist traditions (esp. Mahayana) strongly support vegetarianism

 

 Big Picture
Across Indian traditions:
Jainism → strictest (absolute non-violence)
Hindu yogic paths → recommend vegetarian (sattvic diet)
Buddhism → mixed, but compassion-focused
Sikhism → optional, not mandatory

 

 

 Core Reasons They Gave
Most of these gurus supported vegetarianism because:
Ahimsa (non-violence)
Mental clarity & meditation
Compassion for living beings
Spiritual discipline
 

[randomGuy]

 

 

 

Founder of iskcon.

 

[ravishingravi]

Ok. This seems like my world :)

 

I have the approach to keep the text aside and focus on the principle. Otherwise not much difference between us and abrahamics. 

 

In principle and in practice, as one becomes more spiritual, one also becomes more sensitive and receptive. Impact of colours, sounds, energy and Food. As one begins to meditate, it becomes very clear why Mahavir forbid garlic and onion. It's absolutely antithetic to a person's receptivity and sensitivity. Same principle can also be extended to meat. 

 

In fact, I don't agree that people should be asked to quit anything. But if a person becomes meditative and goes on path of Yog especially Kriya, the person will eventually give it up. Again depends on where you are in your journey. But for someone trying to breakthrough, this is a hindrance. For someone who has broken through, it's irrelevant. 

 

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

Taking the argument of vegetarianism to spirituality is like taking the high road. As far as I know, Vedic philosophy, and later text like Manusmriti has not rejected eating meat altogether and say it is not a sin to eat meat. There are many Hindu  castes that are highly spiritual and religious and still eat meat on specific days. I don’t want to go out into the supremacy of either kind of diet. 

[randomGuy]

11 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

Ok. This seems like my world :)

 

I have the approach to keep the text aside and focus on the principle. Otherwise not much difference between us and abrahamics. 

 

In principle and in practice, as one becomes more spiritual, one also becomes more sensitive and receptive. Impact of colours, sounds, energy and Food. As one begins to meditate, it becomes very clear why Mahavir forbid garlic and onion. It's absolutely antithetic to a person's receptivity and sensitivity. Same principle can also be extended to meat. 

 

In fact, I don't agree that people should be asked to quit anything. But if a person becomes meditative and goes on path of Yog especially Kriya, the person will eventually give it up. Again depends on where you are in your journey. But for someone trying to breakthrough, this is a hindrance. For someone who has broken through, it's irrelevant. 

 

 

 

 

Very relevant video.

 

@Lone Wolf seemingly suggests somehow it's a good thing if more of india becomes non veg. It is not, spiritually speaking.

 

it is perhaps a hindrance to spiritual growth as acharyaji says. Simultaneously i think people themselves would not have it or avoid it as they grow spiritually. Probably it's a sign of how spiritually grown someone is. Then again, i am not a judge as well. Best I guess i can do is to try to purify myself (diet aside), there is huge huge scope.

Edited April 2 by randomGuy

[singhvivek141]

At present, I am the only non vegetarian in the generation of my siblings/cousins. Almost everyone has become vegetarian (almost coz some still consume egg).

 

While I don't myself as deeply religious, I do fasting during Navratris, Chhath and eat only veg during Shravan month & Tuesdays/Thursday.

 

I have felt that the time when I dont consume nonveg for a decent amount of time, I dont have to think twice before visiting temple. However, on other days, I have to make sure that after consuming non veg, I should stay away from temple unless I have taken bath. In my rural home, we even eat on an entirely different plates and cook non veg on a different gas to ensure the utensils dont get mixed up.

 

Its probably a solitary incident, but probably thats where the theory comes up that vegetarians are more spiritually connected than non vegetarians. Specially in the society like mine in North India, where vegetarians are in majority.

 

Things might be different in WB, JH, Odisha, Goa & MH...where if I understand correctly that non veg food (specially Fish) is a pretty common dish to consume even during tje festivals.

[randomGuy]

"In the United States, vegans and vegetarians have an estimated average life expectancy of roughly 83 to 86 years, compared to the national average of around 76 to 79 years. This survival advantage is largely driven by a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and certain cancers"

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4191896/

 

 

"There is no single, fixed vegan life expectancy for the USA. However, modeling studies suggest that transitioning to an optimized plant-based diet in adulthood can add 6 to 9 years of life expectancy compared to the typical American diet."

 

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(24)00454-4/fulltext

 

 

@Gollum @singhvivek141 @Lone Wolf

 

 

[randomGuy]

"Vegan,vegetarian diet is better in preventing heart disease , obesity, cancers"

 

Me : aur reh kya gaya?

[mishra]

To me, Hindu philosophy is based on few basic statement.

1. God created everything and that his light is in everyone.

2. Do your Karma on basis of Dharma. You may be right or wrong in taking that call but always do karma on Dharma principles.

 

So if you kill a animal for joy or eating, Obviously you are trying to extinguish that same light which you call god. So being vegetarian is justified. 

 

But point 2 gives you a way out of vegetarianism. If your Dharma tells you to say participate in a war, If you dont have food to live , I think only in such circumstances you can take a call that I need to eat meat to survive.

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 minute ago, mishra said:

To me, Hindu philosophy is based on few basic statement.

1. God created everything and that his light is in everyone.

2. Do your Karma on basis of Dharma. You may be right or wrong in taking that call but always do karma on Dharma principles.

 

So if you kill a animal for joy or eating, Obviously you are trying to extinguish that same light which you call god. So being vegetarian is justified. 

 

But point 2 gives you a way out of vegetarianism. If your Dharma tells you to say participate in a war, If you dont have food to live , I think only in such circumstances you can take a call that I need to eat meat to survive.

 

Plants are living, breathing organisms, too. Where does that fit in?

[mishra]

1 minute ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Plants are living, breathing organisms, too. Where does that fit in?

Perfect. Surving is your Dharma as well. Now Gita says, u cant ever know you are taking the right call. So take the best call using you own “vivek”. I don’t know english term for “vivek”

[randomGuy]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Plants are living, breathing organisms, too. Where does that fit in?

Srila Prabhupada ji, founder of Iskcon answers.

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Srila Prabhupada ji, founder of Iskcon answers.

 

 

 

The potato-baby contrast is invalid. Same contrast exists between a chicken and a baby - comparing a baby to a food-animal is a false equivalence.   

 

As we are learning more about plants, we are finding out that they have many of the distress mechanisms that animals do. Glutamate-based distress signaling, sending chemical and acoustic signals during distress etc. They don't have an equivalent nervous system but that doesn't mean they don't experience distress. 

 

Animals appeal to us - and the closer they are evolutionarily to us, the greater the appeal - because we recognize their distress signals, which are very similar to ours. We don't readily recognize distress signals from distantly-related organisms. That doesn't mean they don't feel distress, just that we don't recognize them.

[mishra]

39 minutes ago, mishra said:

Perfect. Surving is your Dharma as well. Now Gita says, u cant ever know you are taking the right call. So take the best call using you own “vivek”. I don’t know english term for “vivek”

@BacktoCricaddict Hindu philosophy is very logical. If you say peace be on whole universe or say live and let live or live with nature or vasudev kutumbkam, we include every living organism. Why can we include every living organism, because we believe same light exists in every organism.

 

Then u find paradox. If you want to live u must eat. Now use ur Vivek what to eat. For example one can argue that a dead fish which died because it accidentally came out of water, or some animal died in a storm? Can we eat it just as seeds and fruits which have fallen or about to fall.

My vivek says plant is living, seed and fruit or leaves have potential to come alive but not in a state where they will definitely come alive. So i use this pottentially not alive logic to eat them.

Use ur vivek and take the call of ensureing you are eating on concept of living with nature.

 

 

 

on peace, i find peace sitting on banks of Ganga in evening. So all the stuff is connected contextual illogically logical.

Edited June 4 by mishra

[zen]

39 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Plants are living, breathing organisms, too. Where does that fit in?

Generally vegetarianism refers to not eating things that can move by itself - in air, on land, and in water. Living beings with wings, legs, tails and fins, etc. And “loosely” beings that can care for their children. 

 

 

 

[randomGuy]

46 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

The potato-baby contrast is invalid. Same contrast exists between a chicken and a baby - comparing a baby to a food-animal is a false equivalence.   

 

As we are learning more about plants, we are finding out that they have many of the distress mechanisms that animals do. Glutamate-based distress signaling, sending chemical and acoustic signals during distress etc. They don't have an equivalent nervous system but that doesn't mean they don't experience distress. 

 

Animals appeal to us - and the closer they are evolutionarily to us, the greater the appeal - because we recognize their distress signals, which are very similar to ours. We don't readily recognize distress signals from distantly-related organisms. That doesn't mean they don't feel distress, just that we don't recognize them.

 

My main issue is distress. That is why I left eating non-veg as an 8/10 yo kid, didn't involve seeing animal slaughter, just imagining was sufficient. I used to eat chicken mutton fish etc. . It's very very easy to give up non-veg given the fantastic Indian veg/vegan food. It is for same distress factor that I have almost zero-ed dairy intake as well.

 

Nitrogen or other inert gas based stunning causes minimal to zero distress to the animal. CO2 stunning is quite painful. But CO2 stunning is cheaper, i don't think many people use Nitrogen stunning. If they use Nitrogen stunning, 99% of my problem is solved.

 

I don't particularly believe in piousness of all life. So, taking away animal life for food doesn't bother me as much as the distress factor.

Edited June 4 by randomGuy

[BacktoCricaddict]

39 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

 

My main issue is distress. 

 

I think what you mean is that your main  issue is the distress-signal that you can perceive and recognize; that resembles your and my distress-signal.

 

Plants feel distress too when you hurt them - we just can't empathize with that because their distress signals are not perceptible to us, unless we use analyzer devices as sensors. 

 

BTW, I am vegetarian, too. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, mishra said:

My vivek says plant is living, seed and fruit or leaves have potential to come alive but not in a state where they will definitely come alive. So i use this pottentially not alive logic to eat them.

Dry, mature seeds (pulses) are dormant, yes. But, developing seeds (peas), leaves and fruit are fully alive when picked.

Edited June 4 by BacktoCricaddict