16

Is there something in scriptures which compels a Brahmin to be a pure vegetarian or can he eat non-vegetarian food if his health forces him to do so?

  • I also do have same question.. is eating non veg by any individual is a sin? – C Sharper Aug 20 '15 at 12:30
  • 1
    I am still in search for the answer. Actually Manusmriti considers Madira Paan (drinking wine) as a sin but I don't think it goes same for meat. – ABcDexter Aug 20 '15 at 12:54
  • 1
    Actually i have read somewhere .. it was compared with two brothers one who can shout/speak and one can not speak and shout..brother who can shout was compared with animals..and one who can not is compared with plants.. When we cut vegitables we harm brother who can not speak/shout... and when we cut animals for food we harm brother who can shout.. its one and the same.. as explained – C Sharper Aug 20 '15 at 12:58
  • 9
    This world is created such that one creature cannot live without taking the life of another creature (except saints, who need not even eat!!!!). Thus whether it is a plant or an animal, life is being taken out. The point is to 'eat to live' rather than 'live to eat'. I believe that when we eat meat and other tamasic foods, we become slaves to the taste! We are craving for the meat. When we eat rajasic foods such as overly spicy foods, we are somewhere in between, but still not in complete control. However by eating sattvik foods, we are able to better be in control and 'eat to live'. – Sai Aug 20 '15 at 14:12
  • 3
    @Sagar, that's a made up story to justify non-veg. There are many rationals against non-veg. Pro-veg points: (1) Plants don't emit blood (2) Less CO2/Greenhouse (3) Less amount of space is required (i.e. land used to cultivate veg is 25% compared to non-veg) (4) Health concerns (5) Less cruelty ... I don't take any side. The idea is about what causes lesser harm. The other aspects is intention: If a person eats non-veg for survival, it's right. If a person eats veg for just taste fulfillment, it's wrong. – iammilind Aug 20 '15 at 14:22
13

Many of our scripture are the inverse of rationality, especially in today's time. Respecting this sites rules, I will refer the text from Bhagavad Gita (BG), which I feel still relevant to this date (not saying that it's the only relevant text). I would refer links from Vedabase website, but it's recommended to understand Sanskrit or read other similar sources as there are some mistranslation in their English.

Brahmin

First, we need to be on the same level of the definition of "Brahmin". The 4 sections of society are created by lord:
BG 4.13

According to the three modes of material nature & the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the wonder, being unchangeable.

Brahmin > Kshatriya > Vaishya > Shudra
divisions are based on their nature & work. "Nature" is derived from an arbitrary combination of Satva + Rajas + Tamas and "Work" is derived from one's Karma.
So leave behind the mooted notion that the division system is based on surnames/caste/family. After that, you would be able to accept the divisional superiority (as indicated above) without any controversy!

In today's time, we can over-simplistically divide the people as below based on Karma:

  1. Brahmin: Seekers.==> scientists, teachers, spirituals, philosophers
  2. Kshatriya: Warriors.==> army, police/security, politicians, sportsmen
  3. Vaishya: Traders.==> businessmen, merchants, artists
  4. Shudra: Workers.==> social servers, all jobs in various fields

One might have a genuine doubt, ultimately teacher/scientist is also employed, then is he Brahmin or Shudra? A politician makes so much money, is he Kshatriya or Vaishya.
So here comes the division based on Nature:

  1. Brahmin: works for Enlightenment of self/society
  2. Kshatriya: works for Pride of self/society
  3. Vaishya: works for Fulfilment of self/society
  4. Shudra: works for Service of self/society

All the 4 divisions are respectable and required for any society to run. This is how, you can divide the whole world into 4 sections irrespective of religion. e.g. Dr APJ Abdul Kalam being a Muslim is more Brahmin than Mangal Pandey (born in Brahmin family) who was in British military and fought later against it in 1857.

Today, we are living in a hybrid society which was worried by Arjuna and Krishna both during the discourse of Gita.

Non-vegetarian food

Looking at how a Brahmin would behave like, do you feel he needs to eat non-vegetarian?
A person who is a seeker of truth & knowledge and who works for enlightenment would not care for the fulfilment of taste buds and level of bank balance. There is nothing wrong if he does, but then he is more of a Vaishya than a Brahmin.

Counter questions:
Forget scriptures. What if the question of survival?
Yes, in such case it can be appropriate to consume meat. But remember, that it should be really for survival, as good as Eskimos! A very famous event of 1972 Andes flight distaster, where some of the passengers survived based on dead human flesh in Icy mountains. People looked at them with disgust at first, but then they were accepted.

Forget survival. How about nutrition?
There are so many superior veg options easily available for protein, e.g. Soya-bean, Tofu, Paneer(Indian Cheese), Chheno (milk product), Broccoli. They are better in many health and nutrition aspects compared to chicken/mutton/beef/fish.

Forget nutrition. What's wrong with fulfilment of taste-buds?
It's quite expensive for others. When you eat non-veg, virtually imagine that 3 hungry kids somewhere in India/Africa looking at you with merciful eyes. The amount of land required for animal farming is 4 times than the cultivation of vegetable plants.
Also think about: animal cruelty, CO2 emission, greenhouse effect, health risks

Conclusion

Not appropriate to consume non-veg food in general especially in today's time when options are so vast.

Those we call demigods in our scriptures are the embodiment of various nature elements like water, wind, earth, fire and so on. Today nature's cycle is highly disturbed due to human intervention. That's equivalent to betraying those demigods.
If we snatch away the animals/vegetation from nature, but cannot repay its debt back then, Lord Krishna has called such people as Thieves, be it for veg or non-veg.

BG 3.11

The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices, will also please you, and thus, by cooperation between men and demigods, prosperity will reign for all.

BG 3.12

In charge of the various necessities of life, the demigods, being satisfied by the performance of yajña [sacrifice], will supply all necessities to you. But he who enjoys such gifts without offering them to the demigods in return is certainly a thief.

BG 3.13

The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.

  • 4
    great answer sir, but one small question do you mean to say that 'service to society' cannot lead to enlightenment? if so you are wrong – Sai Aug 21 '15 at 14:17
  • @Sai, no I don't say that. In Gita it is said that, If the duty is performed with coviction according to one's Swadharma then it leads to enlightenment. – iammilind Aug 21 '15 at 14:36
  • yeah I was just puzzled because you chose to differentiate between 'Brahmanas - work for englightenment of self/society' vs 'Shudras - work for service of society'. So I was confused why you think there should be a differentiator between doing service and trying to get enlightened. Thanks – Sai Aug 21 '15 at 15:31
  • @Sai, ok if you refer that part then it is not in the sense of "(self) realization". That "Enlightenment" is used more on technical side(which we often use in science stream). E.g. Newton's law is an enlightenment in the field of gravity. Einstein' relativity is enlightenment in space-time. Vivekananda's teachings are enlightenment in celibacy. – iammilind Aug 22 '15 at 2:22
  • 1
    Can you provide reference for the point of nutrition? – Pandya Mar 8 at 8:58
3

Indeed, even I thought brahmins were not supposed to eat meat but I was reading MahAbhArata when I came across the following in sabhA parva (4th adhyaya, slokas 7 through 9):

Then that chief of men, king Yudhishthira, entered that palatial sabha having first fed ten thousand Brahmanas with preparations of milk and rice mixed with clarified butter and honey with fruits and roots, and with pork and venison (भक्ष्यैर्मूलैैः फलैश्चैव मांसैर्वाराहहारिणैः). The king gratified those superior Brahmanas, who had come from various countries with food seasoned with seasamum and prepared with vegetables called jibanti, with rice mixed with clarified butter, with different preparations of meat (मांसैर्विबिधप्रकारैः खाद्यैश्चापि तथा नृप)...

This depicts how dharma raja Yudhishtira fed the brahmanas before entering the palace of Indraprastha.

Of course, if this is parampara, then there must be other instances of brahmanas eating meat. Further, Yudhishtira's life has been based on ideals of righteousness. Assuming that this rite was not according to shastras, I think, would be wrong.

(But it is a well-known fact that Brahmanas shouldn't eat meat. Where does this come from?)

  • 1
    SabhA parva, 4th adhyaya, slokas 7 through 9 – D Marcher Mar 6 at 17:29
  • Hello welcome to Hinduism. Please take a tour of the site and read Guidelines for new users answering questions.This site is an English language site. Hence we are supposed to add English transliteration of Non English verses added in the answer and also English translation of the verses quoted in the answer. While other user has helped you with adding meaning of the said sentence, it will be better if you add meaning with context in English and also add transliteration for Devanagari verses because many can't read and understand it. – Sarvabhouma Mar 7 at 2:20
  • Looking at the way answer is written, it looks to me you are asking a question why Brahmins are said to be vegetarians while ancient texts recommend otherwise. Is this a proper answer (pun intended) or a question asking why Brahmins are known to be vegetarians? Please edit your answer to clarify this. I ask because this space is only for writing an answer to posted question. Questions should be posted separately. – Sarvabhouma Mar 7 at 2:23
  • I don't see those verses about pork and other type of meats here. It appears the Critical Edition team of Mahabharata has removed those verses. This is Bibek Debroy's translation and no mention of pork and meat there as well. – sv. Mar 7 at 19:45
  • I can show the links where I found this. link and link here too. What does critical edition mean? Why do the above links and this link have different slokas? – D Marcher Mar 7 at 20:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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