Did Ramakrishna and his followers eat meat?

[Kuvalya_Dharmasindhu]

Vaisnava's try to follow what is enjoined in the scripture. For example Krishna says in Gita 9.26: "If one offers me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water I will accept". Now it is understood that actually Krishna accepts love and devotion, it is not that He needs our meagre offerings of fruit etc. But He does specify what one should offer ie nowhere does He ask for meat or the like. This is our primary consideration.

From another perspective though, of logic, we can surely understand that taking the life of a fruit, vegetable, sprout, grain, milk, sugar etc is far less sinful than taking the life of a cow, sheep, goat, chicken etc. For one the animals cry like anything - whearas fruit almost begs to be eaten.

Atmarama-ji, i'm sorry but i don't believe that just because Sri Krishna talks about fruit and doesn't mention meat that you can make any assumption (based strictly on that fact) against the consumption of meat. I personally don't see a correlation in that and although i can see your point about the suffering of animals, i've never heard a fruit beg to be eaten.... Nor do i think they would beg to be eaten... I think that's personally one's own desire for the consumption of a beautiful apple speaking...

In the end, it's a matter of perspective. If someone feels they can't learn from certain manifestations of the Lord because those gurus eat meat then i feel very sorry for that misguided devotee as that individual has yet to develop enough Viveka to discern between following gurus in a possible real life situation: a guru who eats meat and has an understandings greater than the devotee's own due to their practices of Jnana and Bhakti toward Sriman Narayana and the Vegetarian "guru" who may not have any true realization and could just be a charlatan. Thus, one would be selling themselves short...

I can understand this perspective, but I will tell you how I think about it.

Gone are the days when people hunted for their food and respected the life they took, with knowledge of Dharma. Most people eat meat that is produced from a meat industry that is a very horrific aspect of our society. Can you imagine the karma involved? Not just for the life taken, but all the suffering related.

An Enlightened person is immune to karma, but do they knowingly and willingly contribute to this inhumane industry? I should hope not. At least not the Spiritual Masters. How can they say that it is their dharma to eat meat? Their life is dedicated to spiritual practice- not body building and war, which requires an intake of more protein.

I do not understand why people try to equate plant life to animal life. You may believe that plants are souls just like every living entity, but it is clear that there are various levels of consciousness associated with every life form. A plant has a certain level of sentience, but this level is so much less than the average animal. Plants do not experience the level of emotions and pain that an animal does. So the suffering and the associated karma involved with killing plants is minimal in comparison.

As well as this, a lot of the plants that are consumed are not killed. That is because the apple is part of the Tree- the tree is the body and the apples, leaves, branches grow from it. You might hurt the tree a little when you pick its fruit, but the individual apples are not individual life forms.

In other words, I do not think that plants can be compared to animals in this context. It is not an excuse.

Madhuri-ji, with all due respect i don't have to justify anything; i don't make excuses. I may perceive certain things differently than many Vaishnavas, but regardless of what anyone may think, one person's opinion isn't necessarily better than another's. While i agree with you that the meat producing industries are horrifying. There are scientific studies that show that plants react when you talk with adoration to them and treat them with love as opposed to when you treat them negatively (music has also been incorporated into these experiments).... This goes to show that they have more emotional faculty than what most people think.

 

[Satsangi]

Hi everyone,

The question is not about eating meat. The issue is about consuming Sattvic "food" through all the Indriyas (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin). The type of "food" that you consume through these Indriyas has a direct effect on the type of gunas that prevail in the Anthakarana (mind, ego, chitta, intellect). Brahma Jnana is attained in the Sattvic guna and this in turn helps one transcend the sattva guna and reach the "Gunatita" (above the gunas) stage. This is where the real Parabhakti is bestowed.

The Avatars and the realized Saints are already "Gunatita" and hence are not influenced by Kaal, karmas, maya or its products. Hence, one should not do what they did, but do what they taught. For example, it would be unwise spiritually to copy Lord Krishna's life, but it would be equally wise to do what He taught in the BG. There is another story about Adi Shankara who drank some alcohol offered with devotion while visiting one devotee who ran a brewery. All his Shishyas mimicked the Guru and merrily drank. In the next town, they visit a devotee who made vessels out of molten iron. Adi Shankara asks for some molten iron and drinks it. He then offers some molten iron to his Shishyas to drink. The Shishyas learn the lesson not to do what the Guru did, but to do what he commanded for them to do.

I should mention that we should copy all that the great Saints and Avatars did that was consistent with the Dharmas. But if it was not consistent with the Dharmas, then it should not be followed.

The Dharma Shashtras are amply clear about the "rules" for a spiritual aspirant. The prescriptions are different for Grihasthis and Tyaagis as these are different paths; do not confuse the rules of one with the other. I will leave it at that as the Dharmas constitute entirely a different topic.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son - Yajur Veda

If you believe that the Vedas form the bedrock of your belief system, then you have this problem that your foundation was built by meat-eaters - more specifically beef eaters.

There is an entire book researching the dietary trends of Vedic people titled The Myth of the Holy Cow. There is plenty of evidence outside this book as well that meat eating went out of fashion among Brahmanas only due to Jainism and Buddhism.

 

[Satsangi]

If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son - Yajur Veda

If you believe that the Vedas form the bedrock of your belief system, then you have this problem that your foundation was built by meat-eaters - more specifically beef eaters.

There is an entire book researching the dietary trends of Vedic people titled The Myth of the Holy Cow. There is plenty of evidence outside this book as well that meat eating went out of fashion among Brahmanas only due to Jainism and Buddhism.

Can you please post a Sanskrit shloka instead of a translation- I am sure there must be many meanings for the "meat of the bull" word in that Shloka in Sanskrit, as usual.

Against this one quotation FOR eating meat even if we accept the translation posted, there are plenty other quotations which forbid from eating meat. Why do we have to disregard those quotations? (For example, Ahimsa Paramah Dharmah) Even not taking into consideration the quotations FOR Vegeterianism, the quotation of the Veda provided by you (accepting your translation) is obviously for a couple (Grihasthi) wanting a son who would be "full enjoyer of life". This is not the path for the one wanting BrhamaJnana.

Again, the Dharmas for different Varnas and Ashramas are different; not to be confused with each other.

I do not think that the Vedas came from the so called "Vedic people" anyway. Just as the atomic power was not invented by me or you (and all except few living at this time), the Vedas hardly have to do anything with the common people living at that time. The Vedas were revealed to the highest of the souls- the Rishis by God Himself as per our belief. The Vedas had nothing to do with the other "Vedic people" which happen to be living at that time (and this was not a specific small period anyway). The dietary practices of people living at that time also had nothing to do with the Vedas themselves (assuming they ate cows and meat as portrayed by some).

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Just for the record, I am not advocating meat-eating. Simply pointing out the the Vedas were revealed to Rishis who were neither Sanyasis nor Vegetarians and many vegetarian beliefs of today claim these Vedas as their foundation.

Can you please post a Sanskrit shloka instead of a translation- I am sure there must be many meanings for the "meat of the bull" word in that Shloka in Sanskrit, as usual.

I can dig up the sanskrit or you can too. It is Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 which is pretty commonly available. As for multiple meanings, we are on solid ground here because traditional Vedanta Gurus like Shankara and Madhva have interpreted this text to mean just that - veal/beef. It is quite possible that some creative mind will interpret it as a mango or a coconut - but I have not seen anyone do that yet.

Against this one quotation FOR eating meat even if we accept the translation posted, there are plenty other quotations which forbid from eating meat. Why do we have to disregard those quotations? (For example, Ahimsa Paramah Dharmah) Even not taking into consideration the quotations FOR Vegeterianism, the quotation of the Veda provided by you (accepting your translation) is obviously for a couple (Grihasthi) wanting a son who would be "full enjoyer of life". This is not the path for the one wanting BrhamaJnana.

DIetary restrictions are not part of the Upanishad or even the Gita. My point is simply that meat eating was prevalent and even accepted long ago. Yajnavalkya the Rishi behind the BU and the major part of the Krishna Yajur also says elsewhere (Shatapata Brahmana) how he loves veal. I can find the specific quotes.

I do not think that the Vedas came from the so called "Vedic people" anyway. Just as the atomic power was not invented by me or you (and all except few living at this time), the Vedas hardly have to do anything with the common people living at that time. The Vedas were revealed to the highest of the souls- the Rishis by God Himself as per our belief.

I am talking about these highest of the souls - like Yajnavalkya. These instructions come from them and like I said earlier, there is clear evidence that Yajnavalkya was a beef eater. There are several stories on Bull sacrifices, goat (Aja) sacrifices, etc.

Anyway, this is not a secret or even questionable. Traditional Brahmanas of today agree that their ancestors ate meat. When Al-Beruni visited India during the 10th century, all the Brahmins he met were vegetarians. But they told thim that their ancestors ate beef and the practice stopped on the arrival of Vasudeva. Recall, the Mahabharata story of the enlightened butcher posted yesterday by Wannabeyogi.

I have several quotes to this effect and can post them here, if there is interest.

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri-ji, with all due respect i don't have to justify anything; i don't make excuses. I may perceive certain things differently than many Vaishnavas, but regardless of what anyone may think, one person's opinion isn't necessarily better than another's. While i agree with you that the meat producing industries are horrifying. There are scientific studies that show that plants react when you talk with adoration to them and treat them with love as opposed to when you treat them negatively (music has also been incorporated into these experiments).... This goes to show that they have more emotional faculty than what most people think.

I agree. But that doesn't change what I have already stated previously.

 

[Madhuri]

This is a hard question because I am not realized. I do not believe him to be free I see traces of ego in him. Still I believe fully realized souls as a rare thing on this earth.

Of course. I agree.

I want to point out that I do not judge someone for eating meat any better or worse that other actions that lead to the accumulation of karma and attachment to the material world. I am only speaking of Spiritual Masters. I just find it hard to think that a Realised personality would willingly contribute to animal suffering.

 

[Madhuri]

If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son - Yajur Veda

If you believe that the Vedas form the bedrock of your belief system, then you have this problem that your foundation was built by meat-eaters - more specifically beef eaters.

There is an entire book researching the dietary trends of Vedic people titled The Myth of the Holy Cow. There is plenty of evidence outside this book as well that meat eating went out of fashion among Brahmanas only due to Jainism and Buddhism.

What I have found difficult about these scriptures (in terms of interpretation) is that there are passages that contradict each other. So in the same Veda, you can find verses that speak against meat eating/animal-killing.

 

[atmarama]

Wow, it seems a whole can of worms has been opened up here

i don't believe that just because Sri Krishna talks about fruit and doesn't mention meat that you can make any assumption (based strictly on that fact) against the consumption of meat.

That is not what I way saying Kuvalyaji. I simply meant that a vaisnava would naturally like to offer everything he eats to the Lord, and the Lord has made no mention that He would like meaty things...

i can see your point about the suffering of animals, i've never heard a fruit beg to be eaten.... Nor do i think they would beg to be eaten... I think that's personally one's own desire for the consumption of a beautiful apple speaking...

That is kindof my point. It seems very natural to eat fruit (beautiful apple as you mentioned) - whereas to kill an animal to me at least seems rather unnatural. This is from a humane perspective and not a "vedantic" one. This is even more evident with fruit. When fruit ripens, it will attract people to eat it by its fragrant smell, beautiful color and delicious taste. It is in this way that fruit trees can achieve their purpose of propagating their seed over a wide area.

In the end, it's a matter of perspective. If someone feels they can't learn from certain manifestations of the Lord because those gurus eat meat then i feel very sorry for that misguided devotee as that individual has yet to develop enough Viveka to discern between following gurus in a possible real life situation: a guru who eats meat and has an understandings greater than the devotee's own due to their practices of Jnana and Bhakti toward Sriman Narayana and the Vegetarian "guru" who may not have any true realization and could just be a charlatan. Thus, one would be selling themselves short...

To me this makes no sense, I am sorry. Guru means "One who removes the darkness of ignorance". So Guru and eating meat really don't belong in the same sentence. There is so much evidence right before our eyes that indicates the meat industry to be one of the darkest pits of ignorance in the world today. I honestly cannot accept someone as spiritual teacher if they rely on animal slaughter to eat. It is quite simply against the principles of religion.

The question is not about eating meat. The issue is about consuming Sattvic "food" through all the Indriyas (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin). The type of "food" that you consume through these Indriyas has a direct effect on the type of gunas that prevail in the Anthakarana (mind, ego, chitta, intellect). Brahma Jnana is attained in the Sattvic guna and this in turn helps one transcend the sattva guna and reach the "Gunatita" (above the gunas) stage. This is where the real Parabhakti is bestowed.

Thank you for this dose of truth Satsangi-ji.

I want to point out that I do not judge someone for eating meat any better or worse that other actions that lead to the accumulation of karma and attachment to the material world. I am only speaking of Spiritual Masters. I just find it hard to think that a Realised personality would willingly contribute to animal suffering.

I agree with Madhuri on this 100% - I am not out th judge folks, after all. the Lord Himself grants the desires of the living entity, so who am I to object. We are just discussing this topic in relation to advancing our spiritual consciousness - and simply put, flesh eating doesn't assist us in that regard...

 

[Satsangi]

Just for the record, I am not advocating meat-eating. Simply pointing out the the Vedas were revealed to Rishis who were neither Sanyasis nor Vegetarians and many vegetarian beliefs of today claim these Vedas as their foundation.

I can dig up the sanskrit or you can too. It is Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 which is pretty commonly available. As for multiple meanings, we are on solid ground here because traditional Vedanta Gurus like Shankara and Madhva have interpreted this text to mean just that - veal/beef. It is quite possible that some creative mind will interpret it as a mango or a coconut - but I have not seen anyone do that yet.

DIetary restrictions are not part of the Upanishad or even the Gita. My point is simply that meat eating was prevalent and even accepted long ago. Yajnavalkya the Rishi behind the BU and the major part of the Krishna Yajur also says elsewhere (Shatapata Brahmana) how he loves veal. I can find the specific quotes.

I am talking about these highest of the souls - like Yajnavalkya. These instructions come from them and like I said earlier, there is clear evidence that Yajnavalkya was a beef eater. There are several stories on Bull sacrifices, goat (Aja) sacrifices, etc.

Anyway, this is not a secret or even questionable. Traditional Brahmanas of today agree that their ancestors ate meat. When Al-Beruni visited India during the 10th century, all the Brahmins he met were vegetarians. But they told thim that their ancestors ate beef and the practice stopped on the arrival of Vasudeva. Recall, the Mahabharata story of the enlightened butcher posted yesterday by Wannabeyogi.

I have several quotes to this effect and can post them here, if there is interest.

Hi Kaisersose,

(1) The verse is for a Grihasthi who wants a son who "enjoys the life". It is not for a BrahmaJnana student. Adi Shankara and Madhavacharya wrote commentaries on the Upanishads; I am not aware of either of them commenting on this part you mention. Can you please provide the referrence? Both advocated vegeterianism and both accept Vedas as their foundation; I am sure they must have given an explanation to this worse.

(2) I am not sure about the Upanishads and Vegeterianism (or part of Upanishads quoting non vegeterianism). But BG is very specific about taking Sattvic food and it does explain the gunas that prevail due to food inake.

(3) The Aja and Rishabha have several meanings in Sanskrit and these sacrifices have been shown to have a different meaning including the term "Ashwamedha" by some people. I can work on this and try to find it if you need. I am not sure of the part that Yajnavalkya says he eats beef.

(4) Some Brahmanas of today also eat meat; what to talk of their ancestors. I am sure some of the so called "Vedic age people" ate meat just like most of the world eats meat currently. But it is VERY debatable when you say that Vegeterianism is not at all important for spiritual advancement or that a renunciate BrahmaJnani ate meat.

(5) Regarding WY's story- I have already said that enlightened people are very different and they are not starting from scratch. He was doing it as his occupation; may be he was a vegeterian- who knows?

(6) Against the Butcher's and Yajnavalkya eating meat (which is debatable as the Aja and Rishabha meanings are many) stories- there are countless examples of Sages like Narada and Sanakadiks who abhored meat.

Regards,

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What I have found difficult about these scriptures (in terms of interpretation) is that there are passages that contradict each other. So in the same Veda, you can find verses that speak against meat eating/animal-killing.

This goes to the central core of my beliefs on the subject of the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma. It is one of the reasons I desire to be a true Hindu. Yes, they contradict that was the intention of the sages.

Each person has a different mind and history. All of us have different Dharmas.
The scriptures reflect this truth almost continually. Not only different puranas contradict but, different Vedic Hymns contradict, and sages at times teach different paths in the same chapter. This is done by design and not accident.

In the Mahabhrata Bhishma teaches why you should be a Vegetarian in the same text you get a speech from an enlightened Hunter why you should eat meat. Some Vedic Hymns are Monotheist others are Monist. Some of the Vedas teaches to eat meat other parts teach not to.

God and truth are so large that the human mind cannot come close to conceiving it. Holding on to dogma is counterproductive in the spiritual life.

The contradictions in scripture work at times like a Zen koan they rip at the mind. So we can go beyond it. It is only when the mind is still can we be lost in Love.

Kali Mata Ki Jai

 

[kaisersose]

Hi Kaisersose,

(1) The verse is for a Grihasthi who wants a son who "enjoys the life". It is not for a BrahmaJnana student. Adi Shankara and Madhavacharya wrote commentaries on the Upanishads; I am not aware of either of them commenting on this part you mention. Can you please provide the referrence? Both advocated vegeterianism and both accept Vedas as their foundation; I am sure they must have given an explanation to this worse.

The verse is Brihadaranyaka UPanishad 6.4.18 - a major Upanishad and part of the Yajur. It has commentaries by all three Stalwarts.

Once again, this is not a case for meat-eating. As I said earlier, the position is meat-eating was prevalent among Brahmanas long ago, but is expressly banned for Kali-yuga.

Same with animal sacrifice. Though it is recognized that bulls and goats were sacrificed once upon a time, none of this is allowed in Kali-yuga. The same Yajnas can be performed today, but live animals are to be replaced with Pishta Pashus (flour animals).

 

[Satsangi]

The verse is Brihadaranyaka UPanishad 6.4.18 - a major Upanishad and part of the Yajur. It has commentaries by all three Stalwarts.

Once again, this is not a case for meat-eating. As I said earlier, the position is meat-eating was prevalent among Brahmanas long ago, but is expressly banned for Kali-yuga.

Same with animal sacrifice. Though it is recognized that bulls and goats were sacrificed once upon a time, none of this is allowed in Kali-yuga. The same Yajnas can be performed today, but live animals are to be replaced with Pishta Pashus (flour animals).

Hi Kaisersose,

Please read the following which explain some of the mistranslation or misreading of the Sanskrit words and they enlist a long quotations from various scriptures which forbid eating meat. I am sure I can find more and better links- this is just a start.

shastra

Re: animal slaughter in the Vedas

No beef in Vedas – Agniveer

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend WY,

The contradictions in scripture work at times like a Zen koan they rip at the mind. So we can go beyond it. It is only when the mind is still can we be lost in Love.

Could you start a sanatan dharma KOAN thread??
Would be interesting; as it is time that through this exercise dharma would evolve further; which is self discovery!

Love & rgds

 

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

It seems to me this eating of meat is rooted in non-injury.
I think several have brought this up . Some call this ahiṁsā we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence.

This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). At the ultimate level this ahiṁsā when in full bloom brings no harm in thought, deed, word or action. This observance is substantial - to bring no harm to any being.

What of swatting a fly? Or a mosquito? Some even argue , what of bacteria, or the insect world so small that when you walk or drive one brings death to these creatures. It seems to be easier not to bring violence to another person, as it's more overt. Yet the notion as I see it is to do the least harm while on this earth.


I read the words of svāmī lakṣman-jū which he comments upon ahiṁsā and says when fully practiced it takes one swiftly to their goal ( in this case he is discussing mokṣa).

The more I read and study, non-injury comes up again and again. I am thinking 'why so much attention to this ? I see the value but is there more that I am missing ? '.

To this I happen to arrive at a discussion between vyāsa-ji¹ and his son śuka¹ in the mahābhārata. He speaks to him of the vānaprastha āśrama ( vana =forest , forest dweller, or 3rd halting place) in life.
He mentions this vānaprastha never takes note of the evil acts of others, never listens to what is said in dis-praise of others or himself - if this occurs he should remain perfectly silent. This is the medicinal treatment prescribed for him. Hence even listening that discusses injury to another is not healthy.

Then vyāsa-ji says the following - engulfed within the dharma of ahiṁsā is every other duty and observance. He who forswears ( swears off) the religion of injury (called tikśnaṁ tanuṁ¹) suceeds in attaining mokṣa whence is the assurance of harmlessness to all creatures.
IMHO This is absolutely brilliant. Within just this one thing , ahiṁsā, all other dharma-s reside.

praṇām



words offered above

• Veda vyāsa the one who compiled the veda-s, or Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana ;

• śuka - means the bright one, a parriot. śuka is the a son of vyāsa and known as the narrator of the bhāgavata-purāṇa to king parikṣit
• tikśnaṁ tanuṁ -
  • tik+śa + naṁ ;
  • tik = to wound or injure + śa = śastra + na= as it were, like , as tanu - is the body , person, self; some say svakā tanu 'one's own person'; in this application it is considered 'body'.
  • Hence the body (tanu) of knowledge ( śastra) that addresses injury i.e. the sacrifical acts
• ātma-vantam - ātma=Self + vanta or van = possess, win , become master of

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

t seems to me this eating of meat is rooted in non-injury.
I think several have brought this up . Some call this ahiṁsā we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence.

This is how I look at it. Ahimsa is a spiritual practice. Like japa or chanting scripture. If someone does not chant scripture who am I to judge him.

Ahimsa has been a central part of my professional life. My job was to stop violent behavior with mentally ill patients in a forensic ward. This was to be done in a safe non-violent manor. I moved on to mentally ill gang members and violent teenagers, then small children who have been very badly abused. Just not eating meat is just a small part of being nonviolence. Even not hitting back is just a start. Complete nonviolence is in thought word and deed. Only by grace is this skill mastered. Our ego's must die. I have been a failure up to this point. I still feel anger and am short with my family at times. This is why I refuse to hold it against anyone. It has even been hard for me to let go the anger of seeing friends beaten to death and clients that I have loved raped. By grace of Mother this has been possible.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Friend WY,


Could you start a sanatan dharma KOAN thread??
Would be interesting; as it is time that through this exercise dharma would evolve further; which is self discovery!

Love & rgds

I will give it some thought. I sounds good.

 

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Ahimsa has been a central part of my professional life. My job was to stop violent behavior with mentally ill patients in a forensic ward. This was to be done in a safe non-violent manor. I moved on to mentally ill gang members and violent teenagers, then small children who have been very badly abused. Just not eating meat is just a small part of being nonviolence. Even not hitting back is just a start. Complete nonviolence is in thought word and deed. Only by grace is this skill mastered.

I applaud your efforts and agree on your assessment...

I have been practicing the same. One lesson I value is from svāmī lakṣman-jū he says he says one who maintains this non-violence, this non-injury influences his enemies by this state of being be non-violent.
Yet he cautions the sadhu to avoid those conditions that put him/her in the company of those that choose this life style. He quotes Tantraloka as an example, it says Even if you are not a thief and yet you associate with thieves you are also considered to be a thief.
So, I put my efforts to even avoid these conditions. Can I do better? I always can improve. ( this does not suggest I frequent thieves ).

I have much to learn, much to improve - but as of late the path has become clearer.

praṇām

 

[zenzero]

Friend WY,

This is how I look at it. Ahimsa is a spiritual practice. Like japa or chanting scripture. If someone does not chant scripture who am I to judge him.

Personal understanding is that spiritual and physical are the two ends of the same pole.
Yes, water flows from higher plane to lower similarly when the spirit decides to do something it reflects itself on the physical plane.
At the other end it is always a uphill task to swim against the current i.e. practice not eating meat to transform the spirit accordingly.
The best alternative is through understanding and being watchful one slowly becomes aware of the old habits, desires and attachments with meat and develops non-attachment and with such practice one drops eating meat.
However as has explained before that it is all about preservation of life and so jainas do not even eat roots of plants within the gamut of vegetarianism as roots cuts of life of the plant totally whereas leaves and fruits do not.
To preserve one life some form of life is always sacrificed and it is always the one that is the latest is on top of the evolutionary cycle and the ones at the lower levels are sacrificed.
Meaning that everything is part of the whole be it plants, animals or humans and each part is depending on another for survival in some form or another. The only escape is by being in meditation and so is the practice of survival only through begging that too from a minimum household [maybe 2 or 3] and only a handful each.

Love & rgds

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Yet he cautions the sadhu to avoid those conditions that put him/her in the company of those that choose this life style. He quotes Tantraloka as an example, it says Even if you are not a thief and yet you associate with thieves you are also considered to be a thief.
So, I put my efforts to even avoid these conditions. Can I do better? I always can improve. ( this does not suggest I frequent thieves ).

The difference is that I hope the people I worked with get better. 85% of the teenagers We worked with went back to normal high school. Many of them graduated. Serving Jiva as Shiva. I no longer work with those type of people. I have done my duty. I just garden and do a little volunteer work with special need children.