-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did shirdi sai baba eat meat?
- Thread starter iamsharky789
- Start date
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
What is the basis for claiming that Manu Smriti is to be followed by all of humankind? It is not even a book of authority for Hindus.
Are you saying Hare Krishnas are vegetarian because of the Manu Smriti - also accepting its views on Sudra/Dvija distinction, animal sacrifice, eating sacrificial meat, etc.,?
Basically it is for all human beings but to accept it or not that's the individual's choice we cannot impose on them everyone has his freewill..but what's a fact remains a fact..Manu smriti is the law codes for humans society and that's a fact...not accepting it as such won't change its authority its just your opninons..
No need to each time hammer the Hare Krishna's or our views..like it or not they are based on shastric evidences..we follow the Vedic principles since we accept them as eternal..
Vegetarianism is essential for spiritual progress since they are food in the mode of goodness and help to keep the mind under control and non veg food is in the mode of ignorance which create barriers for spiritual realisation and entangle us in the maya with its karmic reactions futher & futher..thts read BG(there's a whole chapter on that)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Yugānurupam vyākhyātah pūrvairyah smritikārakaih;
bahudhā, yugadharmah sa vigyeyah iti me matam.
Yadyaivam na prakriyeta mūladharmah api nashyati;
deshakālavirodhena na dharmah bhuvi vardhate."
1. The writers of the smritis of old have explained dharma according to their times. That should be taken as yugadharma (dharma of a particular age), this is my view.
2. If this is not done, even the core of dharma is lost, because dharma cannot increase in opposition to its time and location (Desha-kala-virodhena).
Vishweshwara Smriti (1947)
bahudhā, yugadharmah sa vigyeyah iti me matam.
Yadyaivam na prakriyeta mūladharmah api nashyati;
deshakālavirodhena na dharmah bhuvi vardhate."
1. The writers of the smritis of old have explained dharma according to their times. That should be taken as yugadharma (dharma of a particular age), this is my view.
2. If this is not done, even the core of dharma is lost, because dharma cannot increase in opposition to its time and location (Desha-kala-virodhena).
Vishweshwara Smriti (1947)
Last edited:
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
That is the question. Who told you that Manu Smriti is the law for all humans?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Add to Shiva's post: For all times?
If that was the case then there would not have been any 'dharmasutras' (Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vāsiṣṭha, etc.) and 'smritis' (Narada Smriti, Parashara Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Vishnu Smriti, etc.) other than Manu Smriti.
If that was the case then there would not have been any 'dharmasutras' (Gautama, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vāsiṣṭha, etc.) and 'smritis' (Narada Smriti, Parashara Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Vishnu Smriti, etc.) other than Manu Smriti.
Last edited:
Manu is the progenitor of the human race that's y we are termed as manava..manu smriti is the laws of manu to which manavas should abide in order to have a good and prosperous society or country..try have a look at it u'll find a list of the codes of conducts applied to humankinds..
yes rightly said - all of these you mentioned are dharmashastra as well and what's very interesting is that NONE of them contracdict each other but they rather teaches the same codes of conducts..thats very interesting when you see those...
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Gautama Dharmasutra states that the Vedas prevail over other sources, and if two Vedic texts are in conflict then the individual has a choice to follow either." Even the accepted prime source, the Vedas, may have conflicting views (Nasadiya Sukta, Hiranyagarbha Sukta, for example). If they all said the same thing, then there was no need for the four extant and seventeen mentioned 'dharmasastras'. Do you think that all Hindus of various sectoral views in the four corners of India have exactly the same view on 'dharma'? 
On Dharmashastras and Dharmasutras:
The Dharmasutras were numerous, but only four texts have survived into the modern era. The most important of these texts are the sutras of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasistha. These extant texts cite writers and refer opinions of seventeen authorities, implying that a rich Dharmasutras tradition existed prior to when these texts were composed.
This led to documents with various working definitions, such as dharma of different regions (deshadharma), of social groups (jatidharma), of different families (kuladharma). The authors of Dharmasutras and Dharmashastra admit that these dharmas are not found in the Vedic texts, nor can the behavioral rules included therein be found in any of the Vedas. This led to the incongruity between the search for legal codes and dharma rules in the theological versus the reality of epistemic origins of dharma rules and guidelines.
Apastamba placed the importance of the Veda scriptures second and that of samayacarika or mutually agreed and accepted customs of practice first. The sources of dharma according to Gautama Dharmasutra are three: the Vedas, the Smriti (tradition), acāra (the practice) of those who know the Veda. Baudhāyana Dharmasutra lists the same three, but calls the third as śiṣṭa (literally polite cultured people) or the practice of cultured people as the third source of dharma.
Both Baudhāyana Dharmasutra and Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasutra make the practices of śiṣṭa as a source of dharma, but both state that the geographical location of such polite cultured people does not limit the usefulness of universal precepts contained in their practices. In case of conflict between different sources of dharma, Gautama Dharmasutra states that the Vedas prevail over other sources, and if two Vedic texts are in conflict then the individual has a choice to follow either.
The writers of Dharmasastras acknowledged their mutual differences, and developed a "doctrine of consensus" reflecting regional customs and preferences. Of the four extant Dharmasastras, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkyasmriti and Naradasmriti are the most important surviving texts. But, states Robert Lingat, numerous other Dharmasastras whose manuscripts are now missing, have enjoyed equal authority. Between the three, the Manusmriti became famous during the colonial British India era, yet modern scholarship states that other Dharmasastras such as the Yajnavalkyasmriti appear to have played a greater role in guiding the actual Dharma. Further, the Dharmasastras were open texts, and they underwent alterations and rewriting through their history.
The Dharmasutra and Dharmaśāstra texts, as they have survived into the modern era, were not authored by a single author. They were viewed by the ancient and medieval era commentators, states Olivelle, to be the works of many authors. Robert Lingat adds that these texts suggest that "a rich literature on dharma already existed" before these were first composed. These texts were revised and interpolated through their history because the various text manuscripts discovered in India are inconsistent with each other, and within themselves, raising concerns of their authenticity.
(Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra)
On Dharmashastras and Dharmasutras:
The Dharmasutras were numerous, but only four texts have survived into the modern era. The most important of these texts are the sutras of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasistha. These extant texts cite writers and refer opinions of seventeen authorities, implying that a rich Dharmasutras tradition existed prior to when these texts were composed.
This led to documents with various working definitions, such as dharma of different regions (deshadharma), of social groups (jatidharma), of different families (kuladharma). The authors of Dharmasutras and Dharmashastra admit that these dharmas are not found in the Vedic texts, nor can the behavioral rules included therein be found in any of the Vedas. This led to the incongruity between the search for legal codes and dharma rules in the theological versus the reality of epistemic origins of dharma rules and guidelines.
Apastamba placed the importance of the Veda scriptures second and that of samayacarika or mutually agreed and accepted customs of practice first. The sources of dharma according to Gautama Dharmasutra are three: the Vedas, the Smriti (tradition), acāra (the practice) of those who know the Veda. Baudhāyana Dharmasutra lists the same three, but calls the third as śiṣṭa (literally polite cultured people) or the practice of cultured people as the third source of dharma.
Both Baudhāyana Dharmasutra and Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasutra make the practices of śiṣṭa as a source of dharma, but both state that the geographical location of such polite cultured people does not limit the usefulness of universal precepts contained in their practices. In case of conflict between different sources of dharma, Gautama Dharmasutra states that the Vedas prevail over other sources, and if two Vedic texts are in conflict then the individual has a choice to follow either.
The writers of Dharmasastras acknowledged their mutual differences, and developed a "doctrine of consensus" reflecting regional customs and preferences. Of the four extant Dharmasastras, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkyasmriti and Naradasmriti are the most important surviving texts. But, states Robert Lingat, numerous other Dharmasastras whose manuscripts are now missing, have enjoyed equal authority. Between the three, the Manusmriti became famous during the colonial British India era, yet modern scholarship states that other Dharmasastras such as the Yajnavalkyasmriti appear to have played a greater role in guiding the actual Dharma. Further, the Dharmasastras were open texts, and they underwent alterations and rewriting through their history.
The Dharmasutra and Dharmaśāstra texts, as they have survived into the modern era, were not authored by a single author. They were viewed by the ancient and medieval era commentators, states Olivelle, to be the works of many authors. Robert Lingat adds that these texts suggest that "a rich literature on dharma already existed" before these were first composed. These texts were revised and interpolated through their history because the various text manuscripts discovered in India are inconsistent with each other, and within themselves, raising concerns of their authenticity.
(Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra)
Last edited:
Are the following allowed/rejected by all the dharma shastra?"Gautama Dharmasutra states that the Vedas prevail over other sources, and if two Vedic texts are in conflict then the individual has a choice to follow either." Even the accepted prime source, the Vedas, may have conflicting views (Nasadiya Sukta, Hiranyagarbha Sukta, for example). If they all said the same thing, then there was no need for the four extant and seventeen mentioned 'dharmasastras'. Do you think that all Hindus of various sectoral views in the four corners of India have exactly the same view on 'dharma'?
On Dharmashastras and Dharmasutras:
The Dharmasutras were numerous, but only four texts have survived into the modern era. The most important of these texts are the sutras of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasistha. These extant texts cite writers and refer opinions of seventeen authorities, implying that a rich Dharmasutras tradition existed prior to when these texts were composed.
This led to documents with various working definitions, such as dharma of different regions (deshadharma), of social groups (jatidharma), of different families (kuladharma). The authors of Dharmasutras and Dharmashastra admit that these dharmas are not found in the Vedic texts, nor can the behavioral rules included therein be found in any of the Vedas. This led to the incongruity between the search for legal codes and dharma rules in the theological versus the reality of epistemic origins of dharma rules and guidelines.
Apastamba placed the importance of the Veda scriptures second and that of samayacarika or mutually agreed and accepted customs of practice first. The sources of dharma according to Gautama Dharmasutra are three: the Vedas, the Smriti (tradition), acāra (the practice) of those who know the Veda. Baudhāyana Dharmasutra lists the same three, but calls the third as śiṣṭa (literally polite cultured people) or the practice of cultured people as the third source of dharma.
Both Baudhāyana Dharmasutra and Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasutra make the practices of śiṣṭa as a source of dharma, but both state that the geographical location of such polite cultured people does not limit the usefulness of universal precepts contained in their practices. In case of conflict between different sources of dharma, Gautama Dharmasutra states that the Vedas prevail over other sources, and if two Vedic texts are in conflict then the individual has a choice to follow either.
The writers of Dharmasastras acknowledged their mutual differences, and developed a "doctrine of consensus" reflecting regional customs and preferences. Of the four extant Dharmasastras, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkyasmriti and Naradasmriti are the most important surviving texts. But, states Robert Lingat, numerous other Dharmasastras whose manuscripts are now missing, have enjoyed equal authority. Between the three, the Manusmriti became famous during the colonial British India era, yet modern scholarship states that other Dharmasastras such as the Yajnavalkyasmriti appear to have played a greater role in guiding the actual Dharma. Further, the Dharmasastras were open texts, and they underwent alterations and rewriting through their history.
The Dharmasutra and Dharmaśāstra texts, as they have survived into the modern era, were not authored by a single author. They were viewed by the ancient and medieval era commentators, states Olivelle, to be the works of many authors. Robert Lingat adds that these texts suggest that "a rich literature on dharma already existed" before these were first composed. These texts were revised and interpolated through their history because the various text manuscripts discovered in India are inconsistent with each other, and within themselves, raising concerns of their authenticity.
(Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra)
meat eating as a habit
illicit sex
gambling
itoxication
does any of the mentioned dharmashatra allows these??
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
@4M17
meat eating as a habit: Sage Durvāsā. Dasharatha, Rāma and Krishna going on hunts.
illicit sex: Tabu, 'niyoga' is not illicit sex. It is permitted sex.
gambling: Tabu
intoxication: one can get as much as one want in Indra's heaven, Soma as well as Vāruni.
"कुवित्सोमस्यापामिति" (Kuvitsomasyāpāmiti: Have I not drunk of Soma juice?)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv10119.htm
meat eating as a habit: Sage Durvāsā. Dasharatha, Rāma and Krishna going on hunts.
illicit sex: Tabu, 'niyoga' is not illicit sex. It is permitted sex.
gambling: Tabu
intoxication: one can get as much as one want in Indra's heaven, Soma as well as Vāruni.
"कुवित्सोमस्यापामिति" (Kuvitsomasyāpāmiti: Have I not drunk of Soma juice?)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv10119.htm
Last edited:
- Rama & Krishna or king Dashratha going on hunt does not mean that they were eating meat - this is a total misguidance-as Kshatriyas they need to protect the sages from dangerous animals attack like tigers, lions etc(brahmanas protection)since the sages ashramas were in the forest and needed to be protected. furthermore, those animals who were killed by those Kshatriya assended to heavenly places or get human body in their next life.Sage Durvasa never touches anything that's impure-I duno where you see durvasa muni habit of meat eating - total misconception..the habit of meat eating is not allowed since their punishment and attornment after such activity is mentioned in these dharmashatras and it is also considered as sinful
- illicit sex means having sex with persons other than one's legally married wife or husband..what you quoted as niyoga is something totally diffenrent..niyoga-if a husband cannot beget a child, then with the mutual agreement of husband, wife and elders, the wife is allowed to beget a righteous child from an advanced brahmana in order to keep the husbands linage alive if that's very important to then niyoga is permitted(as in the case in Mahabharata)--again illicit sex is strictly prohibited..illicit sex means to have sex outside marriage for enjoyment--niyoga has completely different meaning and permitted in very exceptional and rare cases..but illicit sex is strictly prohibited since that leads to personal & social degradation-also considered as very sinful
- gambling-these are permitted very rarely only for kshatariyas class - but in general its prohibited-considered as sinful
- Intoxication - very rarely permitted on exceptional ocasion only to kshatariyas class - but in general its prohibited-considered as sinful again..we can't compare us with Indradeva since we are human & should abide to human laws whereas heaven rules are different - it's for the demigods
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
But when a person reaches Indra's heaven on the basis of his good deeds (although not eligible for higher heavens), I do not think Indra would exclude him from enjoying the normal pleasures of Indra's heaven, enjoying the apsara dances and having soma or varuni. Indra's heaven can offer that only.
Hmm yes that's right definitely he'll njoy heavenly delights lol thts very high level njoyment but still on material platform
stvdv
Veteran Member
"Why did Sai baba eat meat?"
I love Sai Baba and was a bit confused at first. But reading more in this topic it became clear at last. He didn't eat meat for 40 years. Never tried to give meat to vegetarians and even help them to stay vegetarian. So quite vegetarian loving I would say. Later on he did eat meat (people say).
I believe Sai Baba is an avatar. If it is true then it would not be wise to question HIS actions. Because whatever the avatar touches gets transformed to the highest level.
[this is my own experience: Once visiting Sathya Sai Baba He gave white rice + sugar to the remaining small group and me. My health was bad and swami previously told me not to eat sugar. So I was confused that time [except whatever avatar gives + common sense before divine sense]. So I made up my mind and said mentally 'I use common sense, i won't eat unless You come and tell me to eat it;. He did come to me and said "yes, yes, yes EAT it". I did. Later on it appeared that all these people were diabetic and were cured. Curing diabets with sugar and white rice. I learn not to judge but trust whatever the avatar gives me personally to be good. But happy to hear that Shirdi gave veggy to vegetarians].
Shirdi Baba also respected the choice of the meat eaters. That's only very positive attitude I think. So at least I am totally at peace now with this "Shirdi Baba eating meat?" topic. Not sure if He did eat meat, but even if He did then it feels totally senang to me. No more question or doubts left.
I love Sai Baba and was a bit confused at first. But reading more in this topic it became clear at last. He didn't eat meat for 40 years. Never tried to give meat to vegetarians and even help them to stay vegetarian. So quite vegetarian loving I would say. Later on he did eat meat (people say).
I believe Sai Baba is an avatar. If it is true then it would not be wise to question HIS actions. Because whatever the avatar touches gets transformed to the highest level.
[this is my own experience: Once visiting Sathya Sai Baba He gave white rice + sugar to the remaining small group and me. My health was bad and swami previously told me not to eat sugar. So I was confused that time [except whatever avatar gives + common sense before divine sense]. So I made up my mind and said mentally 'I use common sense, i won't eat unless You come and tell me to eat it;. He did come to me and said "yes, yes, yes EAT it". I did. Later on it appeared that all these people were diabetic and were cured. Curing diabets with sugar and white rice. I learn not to judge but trust whatever the avatar gives me personally to be good. But happy to hear that Shirdi gave veggy to vegetarians].
Shirdi Baba also respected the choice of the meat eaters. That's only very positive attitude I think. So at least I am totally at peace now with this "Shirdi Baba eating meat?" topic. Not sure if He did eat meat, but even if He did then it feels totally senang to me. No more question or doubts left.
Last edited: