5

I was going through this post "Why can we eat 'living' plants but not 'living' animals?" , and a thought came to my mind.

I've come across a lot of people, who though themselves are pure vegetarians in the Hindu sense, don't mind paying for the non vegetarian food habits of other people. The rationale being, they are not the ones consuming it, so it shouldn't matter.

So, is it fair to say someone paying for the non vegetarian food is assigned same sin as the one bringing it home?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I don't think it's sin if he doing for friend. But it is duty of friend to take care of friend's wish. For ex. Sai Baba used to prepare meal for visitors by himself. Those visitors who was vegetarian, for them he prepared veg meal and for non-vegetarian, he himself used to prepare non-veg meal. Although he was pure vegetarian himself but he never hazitate to prepare non-veg meal for their guests. Service (sewa) to their guest is all he used to think, nothing else. We can't follow 2 dharma at same time. Sai followed dharma of atithi devo bhava. And friend shud follow dharma of friendship first.
    – Vishvam
    Oct 23 '17 at 5:24
  • 1
    Everyone in the downstream path of food from growing to consuming incurs some level of sin. Which is why there are propitiatory rituals at every step. The farmer does his ritual, the bramhana who consumes it does his.
    – user1195
    Oct 23 '17 at 5:58
6

Yes, because he is buying it or paying for it even though he won't be eating it. One who is buying the meat and one who is eating it are both sharing equal guilt.

Manu Smriti 5.51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

So, even the persons who cook the meat and serve it are equally guilty as the person who consumes it, even though they (the cook and the one who serves) might not be eating it.

Improve this answer
4
  • If guest (atithi) demands for non-veg meal then denying that requestion is dharma or adharma since we all knows "atithi devo bhawa".
    – Vishvam
    Oct 23 '17 at 6:10
  • You first have to know the meaning of Atithi ( A-Tithi or someone who's arrival Tithi is not known beforehand) . So an "unexpected guest" is an Atithi to start with. There r more criterias. Any friend or guest or relative does not qualify to be called the Atithi. Now, here the Q does not talk about Atithi. It simply asks- If i don't eat meat but pay for it will i be equally guilty? And the answer is Yes. @Rishabh
    – Rickross
    Oct 23 '17 at 6:30
  • 1
    I think meat offered to Gods as in case of Kali Ma is exception for this rule.
    – The Destroyer ♦
    Oct 23 '17 at 7:40
  • Yes most certainly. The verse i quoted is not talking about meat to be offered in sacrifices for Gods/Manes.@TheDestroyer
    – Rickross
    Oct 23 '17 at 11:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .