This blog is for: curious seekers of enlightenment, Buddhists, animal lovers, vegans, vegetarians, and people who believe in karma and doing good in this sordid world. Read about the 17th Karmapa, the Dalai Lama and the great living Hindu Saints. Let your mind feast on Eastern Wisdom!
______________________________________________________________________ MERCY for ANIMALS: IMPOSSIBLE FOODS AIMS to MAKE 1 MILLION BURGERS a MONTH! http://www.mercyforanimals.org/impossible-foods-expands-aims-to-make-1-million-2 ______________________________________________________________________ FROM LOS ANGELES MAGAZINE: There’s a Veggie Burger That Bleeds Now, and Here’s Where You Can Find It: The Bill Gates-backed Impossible Burger has finally come to L.A.
Vegetables can’t think, or feel, or love, or cry over the movie adaptations of Nicholas Sparks books—but damn if they don’t bleed just like us.
The Impossible Burger, which has been shorthand dubbed “the veggie burger that bleeds” by everyone and their mom, officially made its L.A. debut at Crossroads in Hollywood. The bloody mass of plant matter was developed by Silicon Valley startup Impossible Foods, which, thanks in part to Bill Gates and Google Ventures, raised $108 million in series D funding last year. That’s a lot of cash to disrupt a space currently occupied by Morningstar Meatless Hickory BBQ Riblets (which are actually pretty solid).
But Impossible Foods is doing something a little bit more complicated than mixing soy curds with MSG and potato starch and calling it a riblet. The key to the hyperrealistic fake burger is a molecule that carries oxygen in blood called leghemoglobin, or “heme” for short. Heme naturally occurs in vegetables and legumes, so Impossible Foods took the gene that encodes heme in soybeans and transferred it to yeast to reduce the environmental impact that would come from using soybeans themselves. Unlike their rival bloody veggie burger from Beyond Meat, which bleeds beet juice, the Impossible Burger bleeds real fake plant blood. I think? Science is hard. All you have to know is that it costs $14, it’s available at Crossroads, and it’s a complete mindfuck.
I wish my veggie burger was a little more on the rare side so I could’ve actually tasted the blood. Before today, that would have been a very confusing sentence to read. But now it seems so reasonable, right? The cook on it wasn’t bad by any means—there was a super hard sear on the outside and it was liberally seasoned with salt and coarse-ground pepper—but it was pretty far on the medium-well side.
At first glance, it almost looks like a real burger. Like, it’s super, super close to looking like a real burger, but there’s something not quite right about the way the edges form into a perfect cylinder instead of rounding themselves off in the cooking process. However, if you took the meat patty out of a Buttery Jack from Jack in the Box, you would also say that there’s something not quite right about it. You’d say it looks pretty similar to ground beef, but the gray tinge and strange, pock-marked patterning on the meat disc manages to miss the mark. So if we aren’t issuing deductions to the Buttery Jack for that, then we must not issue deductions to the Impossible Burger.
It tastes almost like a real burger. It’s chewy, it’s salty, and it has that kind of snap that comes with processed ground beef. You don’t get a ton of beefy flavor—there’s an earthy musk and a little bit of iron twang in the background—but you also don’t get a ton of beefy flavor from the patty inside a Buttery Jack either. So, again, I can’t knock it at all.
If someone had handed me this burger from a drive-thru window wrapped in foil, I would’ve eaten it while road raging at people in traffic and had no idea that it wasn’t meat. And I guess that’s the point.
Chef Tal Ronnen said he tried to emulate the quintessential fast-food burger to honor SoCal—squishy bun, raw onion, leaf lettuce, tomato, and thick slices of dill pickle all ready to be slathered in ketchup—and he serves it along with fries that would be a dead ringer for McDonald’s if not for the occasional clipping of parsley. In context of the white tablecloths and green juices at Crossroads, the Impossible Burger seems out of place. That out-of-placeness might make you question why anyone would spend $14 to eat something that essentially tastes like a Jack in the Box analog.
But then you slap yourself in the face and realize that this isn’t a burger, this is a science project five years and hundreds of millions of dollars in the making and it’s laying the groundwork for ending our emotional and physical reliance on meat, which would have drastic positive effects on curbing climate change, which means that you’re not eating lunch, you’re literally eating the future. I’d pay, like, $16 for that, easy.
A long-awaited vegan burger from Silicon Valley startup Impossible Foods hits select restaurants this month. But can coconut oil and potato proteins compete with the red-blooded original?
Silicon Valley’s Impossible Foods is on a mission to replace the All-American burger with a plant-based alternative to ground beef—that bleeds. Photo: Stephanie Gonot for The Wall Street Journal
FROM THE OUTSIDE, THE HEADQUARTERS of Impossible Foods looks like the set of “Office Space”: a one-story Redwood City, Calif., industrial park with blacked-out windows, fronted by rows of plugged-in electric cars. Inside, there’s none of that sleek, airy aesthetic for which Silicon Valley has become infamous. Rows of drab desks lead to back rooms packed with scientific equipment. “For four years, nobody outside the building knew we existed, which is how we wanted it,” says CEO and founder Patrick O. Brown. Brown’s father was in the CIA; a clandestine work environment may be in his blood. As we continue our tour, Lance Ignon, a communications consultant, quips: “It’s not like investors are complaining about us wasting money on art.”
Investors have hardly been an issue so far. The company, founded in 2011, is one of the best-funded food startups of the decade, with $182 million over four rounds from top venture-capital firms and Bill Gates, who joined the latest round in 2015. “This has all gone a lot easier for Pat because he has so much credibility,” says Samir Kaul, a founding partner at Khosla Ventures, which was the only investor during the first round and has participated in every subsequent one.
Today, Brown works just a few miles from the Stanford campus, where he spent almost three decades as a top biochemist. At 61, he bears a passing resemblance to Apple CEO Tim Cook. A regular marathoner, he’s spry and trim in his wardrobe of dad jeans, T-shirts branded with his company’s logo (they’re free to visitors) and a hoodie from American Giant, which Slate once called “the best sweatshirt known to man.” He’s casual in his manner, occasionally sarcastic, prone to delivering research-driven soliloquies while avoiding eye contact. While at Stanford in the 1990s, he pioneered a new type of DNA mapping called microarray, which some in his field believe could one day earn him a Nobel Prize.
At Impossible Foods, Brown, along with 125 colleagues—pedigreed scientists, nutritionists, techno-marketing experts — is working to perfect a vegan version of the all-American ground-beef patty. His elevator pitch is straight-up Silicon Valley: meatless burgers as a “platform to disrupt” the international meat supply. Cows, according to Brown, are “an inefficient technology” requiring too many inputs to create beef, an output that hasn’t evolved since the Paleolithic age. “The whole mission of this company is to make eating animals unnecessary,” he says. “So, we don’t want our product to just be delicious, we want it to be as delicious as meat.” He would never describe his innovation as “a veggie burger,” which conjures images of bland, frozen constellations of grains and beans. His patty is officially “a combination of proteins, fats, amino acids and vitamins derived from wheat, the roots of soybean plants, coconuts, potatoes and other plant sources.” The goal? To reverse-engineer flavors and textures heretofore exclusive to cows.
Brown’s meat-disrupting motivations are manifold. Industrial animal farming uses a third of the planet’s land, while also destroying millions of trees and sucking up one-third of our water supply; methane gases expelled by cows are contributing to climate change. These problems scale up as countries like China and India develop a taste for beef and the global population as a whole continues to skyrocket. Brown is confident that everyone knows this stuff, but thinks no one is taking it seriously. “We’re getting into this very scarily unstable area where we’ve never gone before in terms of pushing the boundaries of a stable planetary system,” he says. “We’re driving toward the cliff with our foot on the accelerator — and nobody was working on this as a solvable problem.”
But in fact, there’s a cottage industry of technology companies attempting to save the planet by redirecting our food supply. Hampton Creek successfully lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to name its canola-oil-based, egg-free spread Just Mayo; Memphis Meats is using stem cells to culture pork and beef, though an edible product is likely years away. The furthest along is Beyond Meat, which sells plant-based “chicken,” “meatballs” and Beyond Beef beefy crumbles in cute resealable packages, plus a new Beyond Burger, being rolled out in a few Whole Foods stores and sold fresh in the meat aisle.
The Impossible Burger is also sold raw, intended for cooking, and engineered to mimic the taste, textures and chemical characteristics of ground beef. “It’s the single biggest category of meat in the U.S.,” Brown says. “We never thought about launching with some feeble, easy, low-impact thing.” Brown is, unsurprisingly, a vegan and hasn’t eaten the sort of burger he’s trying to emulate in at least 40 years. Still, he’s focused on carnivores and uninterested in appealing to his fellow abstainers. “We can have a successful product that would sell to people who are looking for meat alternatives,” he says. “We’re not interested in that.”
Don’t call it a veggie burger. The Impossible Foods patty is derived from wheat, the roots of soybean plants, coconuts, potatoes and other plant sources.
AS WE PUT ON HAIRNETS TO ENTER THE LAB, Brown points out two women working on a melty, vegan version of American cheese. Behind them sits a giant kettle filled with sweet-smelling yeast similar to that used to make Belgian beer. It’s here that Impossible Foods is refining its secret sauce: a compound called heme, which helps meat taste meaty — and which Brown credits for conferring the same property on the Impossible Burger. Heme shows up in animal muscles as myoglobin, and it’s the reason raw beef is red and bloody. It’s also a catalyst for imbuing vitamins, sugars and amino acids with a richer taste. “I knew that in all of the things we call meat, they have s---loads of heme in them,” Brown says. He also knew, from his years as a biochemist, that nitrogen-fixing legumes — like clovers or soybeans — also contain heme. But according to Brown, no one had isolated the compound for flavoring purposes. “It was surprising to me that this was still left to be discovered, given that people have been eating meat for millions of years,” he says.
The team’s next task was to identify plant proteins and other vegan components that work in tandem with heme to approximate ground beef. Rather than picking vegetables with an inherent beefiness, like mushrooms or carrots, “we started with a bunch of ingredients that in no way resembled a burger,” Brown says. His staff used a machine that isolates compounds on a molecular level so scientists could determine which plants might lend desirable properties. Potatoes were selected for a protein that firms up when heated, giving the Impossible Burger that essential exterior crust. Coconut oil, which starts as a solid and melts as it cooks, adds fat and juiciness. Another machine, used to identify specific scents — the scientific equivalent of Smell-O-Vision — helped researchers determine that something in honeydew melon mirrors the scent of cooked beef.
But smell and taste aren’t the only reasons meat is entrenched in the human diet. In most of the world, beef is a luxury good — a uniquely efficient source of protein, iron and calories in a deliciously convenient package. The cattle industry has made it available at a relatively low cost. For the Impossible Burger to have a shot, it needs to replicate the sensory experience, dietary benefits and affordability of ground beef.
Nutrition was the easiest part. Brown had his burger tested to make sure its plant-based protein is just as abundant and “bio-available” as the protein in beef. A four-ounce Impossible Burger contains more sodium and saturated fat than its red-meat inspiration, along with 10 fewer calories. But it lacks cholesterol, hormones, antibiotics, fecal matter, “pink slime” and other unsavory byproducts of industrial meat production.
Cleanliness and eco-friendliness come at a price; in 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that a single patty cost about $20 to produce (and tasted like a turkey burger). Impossible Foods said that number “has dropped substantially,” but declined to give specifics. The company expects production costs to decrease further when its Oakland, Calif., production facility ramps up over the next six months, but the burger will be launching, like other Silicon Valley breakthroughs, as a niche product for the rich.
Brown, of course, understands that pricing will be the barrier to wide adoption. This year, the company surveyed 600 “hard core middle America burger lovers,” as he calls them, about their eating habits and asked them whether they’d choose a plant-based burger if it was identical—in taste and cost—to the beef version. Nearly 70% said they would. “People are addicted to meat, and it’s going to be a long time before they move away from it,” he says. “But what that tells you is that the fact that meat’s made from an animal is not part of its value proposition.” And that was before the company mentioned that the Impossible Burger also emits 75% less greenhouse gas than its beefy competitor and uses up a comparatively tiny fraction of both water and land.
This July, a half-decade after the project began, the Impossible Burger will become available for public consumption. Jardinière, a tony San Francisco restaurant, will begin by offering burgers on special occasions, and a small number of restaurants will start selling the Impossible Burger later this summer, starting in New York. Production is limited—the company could manufacture a million pounds this year, less than a tenth of a percent of U.S. beef consumption — so the rollout is calibrated to target high-end diners first. According to Impossible Foods, the retail price has not been set.
By the time the Impossible Burger hits supermarkets — “in the next few years,” according to the company — Brown hopes to have built enough buzz that grocers will display his meat prominently in the butcher’s case, instead of hiding it in the frozen-food aisle. He’s following the model used to launch Kite Hill, a brand of nut-milk products he co-founded in 2014, which is now among the few nondairy lines stocked in cheese cases at Whole Foods. WFM 0.43 % The idea is to grow slowly, ensuring his burger is increasingly in demand among consumers while the company itself remains small enough to fly under the radar of beef lobbyists. “My feeling is, right now, that we’re in the fortunate position where the beef industry is not inclined to feel threatened by anyone like us,” Brown says. “We’re not having a war of aggression on the meat industry — at least overtly.”
I LEAVE THE IMPOSSIBLE FOODS LAB with a lunchbox full of raw, slider-size burgers and head to the San Francisco restaurant Jardinière. Chef-owner Traci Des Jardins is a consulting chef at Impossible Foods, where she has spent the past year developing recipes and teaching scientists about flavors and cooking techniques. Today, she’s making a version of the Impossible Burger that she plans to serve in July.
The patty sizzles like beef in the pan, which gets my appetite going. But the burger Des Jardins delivers to the dining room is improbably loaded with condiments. Inside a small potato roll, a seared patty is covered with dijonnaise — made with vegan Just Mayo, of course — avocado slices, mashed avocado, caramelized onions, tomato and gem lettuce. If a burger needs this many add-ons, how good can it be?
Surprisingly good, it turns out. The rich crust gives way to a soft, slightly tannic pink center. The taste is complex — fruitier, funkier and more barnyardy than any other plant-based veggie burger. The aroma, which accounts for about 80% of what we experience as taste, is exactly like cooked beef. But the texture is slightly off. When I roll a crumb of burger between my fingers, it goes grainy, lacking meat’s melty quality. Still, there’s a bona fide beefiness to the patty; Des Jardins’s accoutrements aren’t hiding anything. I ask for the chef’s opinion. “There’s a little bit of a cereal note to it,” she says. “But I equate this to when grass-fed beef first hit the market. Initially consumers were skeptical, but now some prefer it.”
‘The taste is complex—fruitier, funkier and more barnyardy than any other plant-based veggie burger. The aroma, which accounts for about 80% of what we experience as taste, is exactly like cooked beef.’
Part of grass-fed beef’s appeal is its artisanal nature and the way it varies from purveyor to purveyor, which is something an engineered mix of isolated compounds can never provide. So the Impossible Burger lacks the elemental excitement of a burger blend made from what was once live animals. To Brown, that idea of tastiness is arcane. “We’re going into completely unexplored territories, where there might be flavors and qualities humans have never experienced before,” he says.
Already, his team has accidentally veered into pork territory a few times, then set those experiments aside. They’re entirely focused on replicating 80% lean, 20% fat, middle-of-the-road ground beef. But in chasing that goal, Impossible Foods may have optimized itself into a corner. The burger is designed for a crisp char and sears nicely in a pan, but Des Jardins admits it hasn’t worked as well when cooked over a grill. Supermarket beef is far from an ideal product, and an engineered, Silicon Valley version is…what, exactly? It’s a vegan take on carnivorism — delicious, admirable and still somewhat anemic.
Later, as I’m driving to the airport, I notice that my hands are sticky with juices that seeped from the burger at lunch. Tentatively, I lick my fingers, expecting beef, but finding nothing. In that moment, I’m convinced that the Impossible Burger is a simulacrum, a brilliantly concocted facsimile of the real thing. When a simulation comes this close to reality, the shortcomings are impossible to ignore. Especially since, as a flight attendant distributes tiny bags of pretzels, I realize that I still want lunch.
Corrections & Amplifications
Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat both make plant-based burgers that are raw and intended for cooking. An earlier version of this article incorrectly suggested the Impossible Burger was the only such burger. (June 17, 2016)
Morgan Freeman and His Holiness the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa (Image: National Geographic)
People still talk about how convincing Morgan Freeman was as a benevolent God in the 2003 film "Bruce Almighty."
Sue de Groot spoke to Oscar-winning actor Morgan Freeman about "The Story of God," his new six-part documentary series that seeks to understand humanity's search for a higher meaning.
When Morgan Freeman steps on to the stage to introduce the premiere screening of his new six-part film, the first instalment of which is about to be shown in the Frederick P. Rose Hall of Jazz at Lincoln Center in the Time Warner building on Columbus Circle opposite Central Park in New York, the audience gives out a sound, a mix between a mmmm and an oooh, the sound of a collective smile. This is swiftly followed by respectful silence.
Freeman has that effect on humans. People still talk about how convincing he was as a benevolent God in the 2003 film Bruce Almighty. (Some people still think he is God.) Academy Award winner, Golden Globe winner, second on the list of top-grossing actors of all time, permanent fixture on the Forbes list of Most Trustworthy Celebrities, an intellectual equally fascinated by the frontiers of science as he is by human behaviour - if Hollywood had to put forward a candidate for a god election, Freeman would most likely be it.
This project, probably the most ambitious and demanding of Freeman's career (and he is 78), has taken him to more than 30 cities around the globe, on a journey of more than 100,000 miles. The series is called The Story of God with Morgan Freeman, which could be interpreted to mean the story of God and Morgan Freeman and what they did together, or the story of how God behaves when around Morgan Freeman. It is neither of these, of course. To avoid confusion, the title really should be The Story of God, with Morgan Freeman as producer, investigator and narrator, but that would be clumsy, and Freeman is the very opposite of clumsy.
When you are Morgan Freeman, it is difficult to announce a series called The Story of God with Morgan Freeman (watch the trailer below) without sounding as though you are talking of yourself in the third person, so he inserts a comma into the title when he says it on stage, with a pause that elicits a laugh. "I hope you enjoy the story of God, with me," he says.
When you are Morgan Freeman, it is difficult to announce a series called The Story of God with Morgan Freeman (watch the trailer below) without sounding as though you are talking of yourself in the third person, so he inserts a comma into the title when he says it on stage, with a pause that elicits a laugh. "I hope you enjoy the story of God, with me," he says. lol
But that came later. A few hours earlier, Freeman is holding court in a suite on the 43rd floor of the Mandarin Oriental hotel next door to Jazz at Lincoln. Through the glass wall the sky is freshly minted and across the road, way down below, the trees of Central Park are flexing gaudy branches off which the sun has melted a light snow that fell overnight. Debutante daffodils have appeared in yellow flounces and hyperactive squirrels run hither and thither in aimless joy.
"Their eyes fill with tears and they gasp with fright. They think to themselves, Who will help me now? There is nowhere for me to run; I cannot fly away; there is only death for me!' They are overwhelmed with dread, their suffering more terrible than if they were on the very brink of the fiery pits of hell. They are thrown on their backs on the ground, their eyes staring from their sockets. And rubbing his hands with satisfaction, the butcher slices open their bellies with his knife and without the slightest hesitation sends them onto the path of the next life. What is there here that could possibly be pleasing to the lama? With complete trust in Guru Rinpoche, ** I beg you with tears in my eyes - all you who love me, do not kill even to save your own lives." - Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa | Khyentse Rinpoche (1730-1798)___________________________________________________________________
Khyentse Rinpoche [Jigme Lingpa*] (1730-1798) said that in the scriptures he had only seen such injunctions as: "I have not allowed, I do not allow, and I will not allow the eating of meat. I have told all the ordained sangha that it is improper to eat meat . . . From now on, the Shravakas should not eat meat." By contrast, he said that he never came across the Buddha saying, "Mark the heads of yaks and sheep that are to be killed."
Khyentse Rinpoche also said that the villagers in his neighbourhood would kill large and fattened animals out of desire for their meat, and they would bring the liver and other pieces of meat as offering to the lamas and meditators.
"Alas, these people!"he cried. "How generous they are and what pure perception of the lamas they must have! How brave they are, being able to kill like that! They do not think that killing is a serious fault! They think that their little gift will do them a lot of good and cleanse away their sins; and they think that the lamas can liberate beings as easily as pulling them with iron chains. It's totally impossible! Nagarjuna has said in his Letter to a Friend": [Suhrllekha]
Were I to make a pill of mud just berry-sized For every mother who has given me birth, The earth itself indeed would not suffice.
"All beings have been our mothers, but ordinary people do not recognize them as such, and that is why they are able to kill them. Of course, we Dharma people cannot eat meat, and why? Because our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters, our friends of the past who were so dear to us - here they are in front of us! They have become these bent and stupid creatures called animals, who do not know what is to be done and what is to be rejected."
"They may have horns on their heads, they may walk on four legs, but they are our parents and friends from the past. People never think about this. They imprison animals in pens and enclosures; it is quite terrible. And when these animals, all our parents, siblings, wives, and friends from the past, have fallen into the hands of their butchers, wicked, cruel men without the slightest trace of compassion, they tremble with fear, terrified beyond measure at the mere sight of their executioners."
"Their eyes fill with tears and they gasp with fright. They think to themselves, 'Who will help me now? There is nowhere for me to run; I cannot fly away; there is only death for me!' They are overwhelmed with dread, their suffering more terrible than if they were on the very brink of the fiery pits of hell. They are thrown on their backs on the ground, their eyes staring from their sockets. And rubbing his hands with satisfaction, the butcher slices open their bellies with his knife and without the slightest hesitation sends them onto the path of the next life. What is there here that could possibly be pleasing to the lama? With complete trust in Guru Rinpoche, ** I beg you with tears in my eyes - all you who love me, do not kill even to save your own lives."
For the Buddha has said in the Sutra of Close Mindfulness: "Those who kill a single being will boil in the ephemeral hell for one intermediate kalpa." The sutras say that to make presents of meat, alcohol, poison, and weapons is a negative action, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore it is quite improper to give meat as a gift. Even those who know no other practice should at least abstain from meat as much as they can. May these words of truth come to pass!"
* Most probably this is a reference to Jigme Lingpa, whose personal name was Khyentse Ozer. Jigme Lingpa died in 1798 when Shabkar was seventeen years old. Shabkar later received the transmission of the Longchen Nyingthig from Lakha Drupchen, a disciple of Jigme Trinle Ozer, the first Dodrupchen Rinpoche, who was a direct disciple of Jigme Lingpa. See Tulku Thondup, Masters of Meditation and Miracles.
** The name by which Guru Padmasambhava, the Lotus-Born, is commonly known in Tibet. He was predicted by Shakyamuni Buddha as the one who would propagate the teachings of the Secret Mantra. Invited to Tibet by King Trisong Detsen in the eighth century, he succeeded in definitively establishing there the Buddhist teachings of sutra and tantra.
Source: FB, p. 85-86)
See also: The Story of the Hunted Deer `The Messenger of Renunciation` [PDF - 750 KB] and the article "Buddhism Between Abstinence and Indulgence: Vegetarianism in the Life and Works of Jigmé Lingpa" by Geoffrey Barstow, Ph.D. [PDF -316 KB] ___________________________________________________________________
By Steven J. Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa) Although not all Hindus are vegetarians, the Hindu world, in general, has a healthy reverence for all of God's creation, often extending to a non-meat diet. But some clearly do eat meat, and for them it is simply a non-issue. Why does such diversity exist in the practice of Hinduism? Why do some adamantly stand behind the importance of vegetarianism while others go so far as to endorse animal sacrifice? The problem is multifaceted, but its resolution begins with the following simple truth: Contrary to popular belief, "Hinduism" is not a monolithic tradition. Rather, it is an umbrella term for a number of diverse religions, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and others -- all with different scriptures, practices, and even conceptions of God.
So while some of these religions sanction meat eating, others do not. In this chapter, we look at Vaishnava Hinduism, the numerically largest segment of the Hindu population,1 to see what role vegetarianism and ahimsa play in its philosophy and practice. Interestingly, Vaishnavism is, for the most part, a vegetarian tradition, accounting for hundreds of millions of people.2
Vaishnavas have always advocated the equitable treatment of our four-footed, feathered, and scaly kin. All were considered brothers and sisters under God's divine fatherhood.
Ancient India's scriptural legacy, the Vedic literature, was originally emphatic in its support of monotheism and animal rights -- even if many of these verses have been lost over time.3 Still, according to the Vaishnava sages who pass down these texts in esoteric lineages -- and according to India's vast storehouse of supplemental Vedic literature, such as the epics and the puranas -- God is seen as the ultimate Father, much as He is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and all living entities as His children. Apropos of this, a strong tradition of ahimsa arose in the Vaishnava tradition, teaching harmlessness and a love for all creatures, who are spiritually bonded in relationship to God. Indeed, the Mahabharata, chief among the Vaishnava epics and arguably the most important scripture in India, says, ‘ahimsa paro dharmo': "Nonviolence is the highest duty."4 Such nonviolence, it should be noted, is expressed in the most general terms. It is meant to be all-inclusive -- not the "qualified" nonviolence found in most Western traditions, to be applied only toward one's own kind. No.
The Mahabharata extols the virtue of sarva-bhuta-hita, which means "kindness to all creatures," as opposed to the more limited vision of loka-hita, or "kindness to one's own species."5 The former includes the latter. In this way, the scripture asks practitioners to be kind to all. Just as the Bible teaches the Golden Rule -- "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" -- the Mahabharata, predating the Bible, teaches a similar truth, and in almost the exact same wording.6 But Vaishnavas extend the teaching to its logical limits, showing kindness to all species of life -- and this, of course, means vegetarianism. It's hard to be kind to animals if you're eating them! The "do unto others" ethic is reflected in the origins of the Sanskrit word for meat: mamsa, which means "me-he" -- or, by implication, "The fate of this animal will also be mine." This etymological derivation of the word can be traced to the Manu-samhita (5.55): "He will eat me in the next world, whose meat (mamsa) I eat in this world. This is why meat is called mam-sa, or ‘me-he'"7 The Golden Rule is clearly at work here. If what I "do unto you" is to eat you, then you have every right, in some future life, to "do the same unto me" -- to eat me. In other words, the karmic reaction for eating a living being is evident in the language itself -- "I will be eaten in the same way that I eat others -- even if they are animals."Thus, devout Hindus oppose killing for many reasons. They know that every action holds within it an avoidable reaction (karma), and that the idea of reincarnation -- of taking birth commensurate with our deeds -- follows karma like the butcher does his meat. Thus, says the believing Vaishnava, that which we do to others will be done to us -- this is the universal law of cause and effect, echoing, once again, the Golden Rule.
In other words, killing begets killing, and since there are many lives in which to reap what one sows, violence and killing eventually return to those who are violent and to those who kill, if not in this life then in the next one. Of course, this action/reaction schema had little meaning for Vaishnavas, who didn't eat meat. Rather, it was a concern for early Vedic cults, Shaktas, and others who took part in animal sacrifices.
Traditionally, worshippers of Kali, for example, were obliged to chant the Sanskrit word for meat while sacrificing an animal as part of an elaborate ritual -- just before slitting its throat. By chanting the "mamsa mantra," the priest's heart was supposed to be softened, and he was pardoned from the sin of killing. There are other linguistic connections between meat eating and the severe karmic reactions awaiting those who do. For example, the Sanskrit noun pashu-ghna ("he who kills the body") can apply to both a "meat eater" and to "one who commits suicide," thus reinforcing the notion that consuming flesh is tantamount to destroying one's own body. Narada Muni, the cosmic sage who travels the universe as he does through the pages of the Vedic literature, tells us something similar in his instructions to King Prachinabarhi, a prince from the Vedic era who was enamoured of opulent animal sacrifices: "O ruler of the citizens, my dear King, please see in the sky those animals that you have sacrificed, without compassion and without mercy, in the sacrificial arena. All these animals are awaiting your death so that they can avenge the injuries you have inflicted upon them. After you die, they will angrily pierce your body with iron horns and then eat your flesh."8 This, again, is consistent with the traditional understanding of the word mamsa. In fact, all Vedic texts in support of animal sacrifice also endorse this karmic idea that the perpetrator's future life hangs in the balance.9 That being said, animal sacrifices and the mantras necessary to perform them properly are ideally things of the past. They are actually considered "prohibited in the age of Kali" (kali-varjyas), even though numerous Hindu sects still make use of them.10
By the thirteenth century, great Vaishnava reformers, such as Madhvacharya, recommended "animal effigies," images of animals made of flour, for example, to accommodate the ancient scriptural mandate and to appease traditionalists who might still be attached to such outmoded sacrifices.11 The sacrifice for Kali is now sankirtan-yajna, or the congregational chanting of God's holy names. It is this, say the sages, that awakens God-realization in the current epoch of world history, just as animal sacrifices once served a purpose in days of old.12 Indeed, one may wonder why animal sacrifices were ever deemed necessary at all, even in the distant past. Though the scriptures are never quite clear on this point, the Skandha Purana offers an interesting history of how such sacrifices began, showing that while the rituals were, in fact, ordained by the saints and sages of the Vedic era, they were never encouraged and always frowned upon. As the story goes, a Brahmin once cursed the world with a devastating famine. The common people, unable to bear it, slaughtered animals to satisfy their hunger -- to stay alive. But the sages did not, even at the cost of their own lives. These sages would rather die, the Purana tells us, than feast on the remains of dead animals. Still, to accommodate the masses, they agreed to let them kill creatures -- but not merely to stay alive. Rather, the killing should be done, first and foremost, as a religious sacrifice, and then the people could eat the remains. This, then, became an established part of Vedic religion, even if the spiritually advanced, it is underlined, did not partake of the fleshy spoils. Gradually the calamity subsided, but the animal sacrifices were already in place, with ritualists continuing to employ them as an everyday occurrence.13
Vegetarianism:A Scriptural Basis that vegetarianism has always been widespread in India is clear from even a cursory reading of her traditional religious literature. For example, the Manu-samhita (5.49), quoted earlier, says, "Having well considered the origin of flesh foods and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh." The same work tells us that "killing living beings is an impediment to heaven" and that "one should therefore abstain from meat." (5.48) The text thus abjures the use of flesh-foods in no uncertain terms. Though the Manu-samhita does include a provision for meat gathered from Vedic sacrifices, it shuns all other use of non-vegetarian fare. (5.42-44) In the Mahabharata, the respected grandsire and general Bhishma has much to say about the harshness of eating animals. While instructing Yudhishthira, eldest of the Pandava princes, he says that the meat of animals is like the flesh of one's own son; eating meat is repugnant, he says, and it should be avoided. Bhishma goes on at some length:
Meat is not born of grass, wood or rock. Meat arises from killing a living being. Thus, in the enjoyment of meat there is fault. The beloved, sincere, truthful gods have in hand (for nourishment) oblations, sacrificial offerings, and nectar. (By contrast), consider the tortuous, unrighteous ways of flesh-eating demons. O King, in not eating meat one goes without fear in moonlight or in the dreadful, dangerous darkness or in the twilight approach of night or at the crossroads or in the assemblies of people. If there were no meat-eaters, there would be no killers. A meat-eating man is a killer indeed, causing death for the purpose of food. If meat were considered not to be food, there would be no violence. Violence is done to animals for the sake of the meat-eater only. Because the life of violent ones is shortened as well (due to their deeds), the one who wishes long life for himself should refuse meat, O splendid one. Those fierce ones who do violence to life are not able to go for protection (when they need it). They are to be feared by beings as beasts of prey. [26-32]14
The Mahabharata further explains that meat eating is in the darker modes of existence, causing ignorance and disease. It makes clear that a healthful vegetarian diet is sattvic -- that is, in the mode of goodness -- able to increase purity of consciousness and longevity. There are many other Indian scriptural texts in India endorsing the vegetarian way of life as well.
Ahimsa and the Vaishnava Tradition
Ahimsa is often said to mean "nonviolence," but, more specifically, it refers to "non-aggression," and it is a high priority in the practice of Vaishnavism. The distinction between nonviolence and non-aggression should be clear. Violence is sometimes necessary, as, for example, when a loved one is attacked and protection is required, or when life is threatened and self-defence becomes natural or obligatory. In such cases, violence may be in order. But aggression never is, at least when it comes to harming others. Qualities such as gentleness, humility, and compassion -- and all related characteristics -- are necessary components of ahimsa, without which one is not really practising the spiritual life proper; and so Vaishnavas put a premium on such behaviour. In their tradition, they see cows as symbolic of all finer qualities, and as representing the animal kingdom as a whole. For this reason, Vaishnavas particularly venerate cows as an emblem of ahimsa. The Vaishnava position is clear: As she is dear to Lord Krishna, the divine cowherd, so should she be dear to us all. In India, to this day, cows are appreciated for their practical value as well, with the five magical products that come from their bodies -- urine, cow dung, milk, ghee, and yogurt -- used in numerous ways. Amazingly, these items, especially urine and dung, have been found effective (and cost efficient) as fertilizer, compost, medicines, pest repellents, cleansing products, and biogas fuel. The cow is also considered sacred as a natural mother for human society -- as one's biological mother weans her young on breast milk, so does the cow nurture us in the same way. Caring for mother cow is thus seen as an important component of ahimsa. It should be noted, however, that while ahimsa is considered important in Vaishnava practice, it always remains subservient to love of God, which is the core of the tradition. Buddhism and Jainism, on the other hand, have elevated ahimsa to a central teaching, taking it beyond its usual manifestation in traditional Hinduism. For all traditions that embrace ahimsa, it is supposed to be practised not only on the physical level, but also on mental and emotional levels. It asks that practitioners avoid abusiveness, whether overtly or in more subtle ways. Two thousand years ago, South India's Tamil saint, Tiruvalluvar, claimed, "All suffering recoils on the wrongdoer himself. Thus, those desiring not to suffer should refrain from causing pain to others" (Tirukural 320). The Tirukural, literally "Holy Couplets," is a revered text among Hindus worldwide, and it is often quoted for its wisdom, specifically in regard to ethics and animal rights. Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami (1927--2001), the founder of Hinduism Today, considered it among his favorite scriptures and often used it to explain Hindu vegetarianism in general: Hindus teach vegetarianism as a way to live with a minimum of hurt to other beings, for to consume meat, fish, fowl or eggs is to participate indirectly in acts of cruelty and violence against the animal kingdom.
The abhorrence of injury and killing of any kind leads quite naturally to a vegetarian diet, sakahara [which is the Sanskrit word for vegetarianism]. The meat-eater's desire for meat drives another to kill and provide that meat. The act of the butcher begins with the desire of the consumer. Meat eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion. When the individual's consciousness lifts and expands, he will abhor violence and not be able to even digest the meat, fish, fowl and eggs he was formerly consuming.
India's greatest saints have confirmed that one cannot eat meat and live a peaceful, harmonious life. Man's appetite for meat inflicts devastating harm on th earth itself, stripping its precious forests to make way for pastures. The Tirukural candidly states, "How can he practise true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh? Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is not to sacrifice and consume any living creature."15 These ideas blend the teachings of compassion and spirituality into one tightly knit tapestry, one that is hung in the home of all believing Hindus. Vaishnavas, especially, seek to develop qualities like compassion and kindness because such characteristics are virtuous in their own right. It is not that Hindus are simply interested in avoiding a backlash -- a future birth -- for violent or thoughtless activity.
To understand the pervasive practice of nonviolence in Hinduism, one must understand how Hindus view the life-force itself. Why is life sacred? For India's ancient thinkers, life is part of God, an emanation of the Divine that must be respected and honoured. Love for God cannot be attained if one does not develop love for God's children, for the sparks of divinity that flow from His (or Her) essence. Accordingly, Hindus have a natural reverence for life, which is part and parcel of their reverence for God.Conclusion: Spiritual Vegetarianism.
The Vaishnava scriptures do not limit their discussion of food to the avoidance of killing and the virtues of a vegetarian diet. According to traditional texts, one should offer all food as a sacrifice to God: "All that you do, all that you eat, all that you offer and give away, as well as all austerities that you may perform," Lord Krishna says, "should be done as an offering unto Me." (Bhagavad-gita 9.27) One should not therefore conclude, however, that everything is offerable. The Gita specifies exactly what should be offered: "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water, I will accept it." (9.26) Other references in this literature confirm that fruits, vegetables, grain, nuts, and dairy products are fit for human consumption. Followers of the Gita thus refrain from meat, fish, poultry, and eggs, since these are not sanctioned by either the scriptures or the sages.
In the modern age, veganism, too, has become a viable option for many devotees.16 The Bhagavad-gita further declares that one who lovingly offers food to God according to scriptural guidelines is freed from all sinful reactions and consequent rebirth in the material world: "The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is first offered in sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin." (3.13) The remnants of such devotional offerings are called prasadam (literally "the Lord's mercy"). Most temples in India freely distribute such sanctified vegetarian food (prasadam) for the benefit of the multitudes that approach the holy shrines daily. This food has mystic potency, say Vaishnava stalwarts, purifying all who prepare it, serve it out, sell it, or eat it.
One of the most celebrated Vedic sages, Narada Muni, was inspired to embark on the spiritual path merely by tasting food offered to the Lord. In conclusion, just as Vaishnavas generally promote vegetarianism within the context of prasadam, they also acknowledge the benefits of a vegetarian diet as a stepping-stone to spiritual perfection. In the Bhagavad-gita (Chapter Seventeen), Lord Krishna Himself acknowledges that food can be divided into three categories, that of goodness, passion, and ignorance. Clearly, the effects of eating food in passion and ignorance, which includes the eating of meat, has adverse affects on the human condition. This is supported by Grandsire Bhishma in the above verses.
Conversely, say Vaishnava texts, eating food in goodness -- fruits, nuts, vegetables, whole grains, milk, and so on -- sets the stage for transcendence, wherein one has the opportunity to become more appreciative of spirituality in general. True, until a devotee comes along and offers the food to Krishna, making it prasadam, one is likely to have a set stage with no actors and no performance. That is, vegetarianism may position us for higher material aspirations and predispose us to God consciousness; but without the touch of God, through the agency of His devotees, we are not likely to get all that can be gotten from a vegetarian diet. Why not, suggests the Bhagavad-gita, get the most out of our vegetarianism by offering our food to God? In Hinduism, this might be called "Complete Vegetarianism," for it takes Bhishma's words into account and yet it augments the Grandsire's teaching with offering food as sacrifice. Which Hindu would deny that it is important to do so? Such a Hindu need merely ask himself, given a choice between vegetarian foods and vegetarian foods offered to Krishna, which would Grandfather Bhishma prefer? Endnotes
1.) That Vaishnavas constitute the Hindu majority was brought to light in three consequential books: (1) Agehananda Bharati, Hindu Views and Ways and the Hindu-Muslim Interface (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1981); 2.) Klaus Klostermaier, "The Response of Modern Vaishnavism" in Harold G. Coward, ed., Modern Indian Responses to Religious Pluralism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 129; and 3.) Gerald Larson, India's Agony Over Religion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), p. 20. The same fact was stated in the 1996 Britannica Book of the Year. 2. Thus, of the almost 850,000,000 Hindus today, seventy-five percent are Vaishnavas, accounting for almost 640,000,000 people. Not all practise strictly, nor are all vegetarian. There are Vaishnavas in the state of Orissa, for example, who live off the sea. Their "sea vegetables" often include fish. Those of lower castes might also eat meat, out of necessity, and warrior-caste families have a tradition of eating flesh-foods, too, especially in the forest as they prepare for battle. But there are few other exceptions in the Vaishnava tradition, with the vast majority adhering to a strict lacto-vegetarian diet. 3. The Vedas as they exist today are said to be but a portion of the original scripture. Regarding monotheism, Vaishnavas aver that the many gods of the Vedas are just aspects of Brahman, the overarching Spirit of the universe. This Spirit, in turn, is merely an impersonal manifestation of Vishnu, the Supreme Godhead. Regarding animal rights, there were, it is true, animal sacrifices in days of old, and these were supported in Vedic texts. But like the biblical prophets, whose esoteric traditions tell us that God "preferred mercy and not sacrifice," Vaishnava sages taught that animal sacrifices were an inferior gift to God, and that He preferred bhakti, or devotion. Accordingly, the sacrifice for the current age is the chanting of the holy name, and animal sacrifices are strictly forbidden. 4.) Mahabharata 1.11.12 and 3.198.69. 5.) The virtue of sarva-bhuta-hita is even referred to in the Bhagavad-gita 5.25. 6.) The Golden Rule, in almost biblical phrasing, can be found in the critical edition of the Mahabharata (5.39.57), as part of Vidura's famous sermon: "Do not do to another that which you would find disagreeable if done to you -- this is the summary of all duty." A similar verse appears again much later in the same epic (13.113.8). See the Ganguli translation on the web: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b078.htm. In other editions, see 13.114.8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs13114.htm). 7.) Also see Brahmanda Purana 2.63.24 and Vishnu-smriti 51.78. 8.) See Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.25.7-8. 9.) See Kaushitaki Brahmana 11.3; Shatapatha Brahmana 11.6.1; and Jaimaniya Brahmana 1.42-44. 10.) See Lance Nelson, "Cows, Elephants, Dogs, and Other Lesser Embodiments of Atman: Reflections on Hindu Attitudes Toward Nonhuman Animals" in Paul Waldau and Kimberley Patton, eds., A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), p. 184. 11.) ibid. 12.) See Bhagavata Purana 12.3.51. Vishnu Purana 6.2.17. Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda 72.25. 13.) Skandha Purana 2.9.9. For context, see Edwin Bryant, "Strategies of Vedic Subversion: The Emergence of Vegetarianism in Post-Vedic India" in Paul Waldau and Kimberley Patton, eds., A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics, op. cit., p. 200. 14.) For context, see Christopher Key Chapple, "Ahimsa in the Mahabharata," in Journal of Vaishnava Studies, Volume 4, Number 3 (Summer 1996), pp. 109-125. 15.) See Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami, Dancing With Siva: Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism (Concord, California: Himalayan Academy, 1993), p. 201. 16.) For more on veganism in Vaishnava Hinduism, see Vraja Kishor Das, The Vegan and the Vedas: A Detailed Examination of Veganism and Krishna Consciousness (Towaco, New Jersey: Krishnafest North America, 1994). Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa) is an initiated disciple of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. He is also founding editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies and associate editor for Back to Godhead. He has published twenty-one books in numerous languages, including the recent Essential Hinduism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008); the Yoga of Kirtan: Conversations on the Sacred Art of Chanting (FOLK Books, 2008); and Krishna's Other Song: A New Look at the Uddhava Gita (Praeger-Greenwood, 2010). ____________________________________________________________________________ THE MAHABHARATA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata
From the book "The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the Human Condition":
Page 114) The three powerful words, ahimsa paramo dharmo, " Not to do violence is the highest dharma," resounds in the Mahabharata throughout. They are spoken numerous times, in different voices, in different contexts. Later they would become the cardinal foundation of Jainism.
Page 120) Not violence towards all beings is the path on which there is no inner disquiet; is superior to all others; and is the most superior characteristic of dharma.
Page 124) Everyone loves one's life, and everyone receives affection from others. Even birds and beasts look at their children with the eyes of affection.
Page 125) In this world nothing is more dearly loved than one's own self. For that reason one should be kind to all beings.
Page 165) Who is free from violence, has equality towards all, is given to truth, is self - disciplined, is protective of all beings, to all beings a refuge - obtains a state most splendid. __________________________________________________________________________
FROM HINDUISM TODAY: WHY is AYURVEDA NOT ALWAYS VEGETARIAN?
In his Ayurveda cookbook, Indian Gastronomy (from which this insight is drawn), chef Gill provides vegetarian recipes as well as meat dishes.
Those familiar with Ayurveda as part of a spiritual practice might be puzzled by this, perhaps thinking that meat should not be included. Hinduism Today, after all, promotes vegetarianism avidly. To shed light on this, Pandit Vamadeva provides the following explanation.
Ayurevada's rejuvenation therapy, rasayana, as discussed in the first chapter of the Chikitsa Sthana of Charaka Samhita, is purely herbal, vegetarian and dairy based. It is combined with achara rasayana, or rejuvenating lifestyle, which consists of all the yamas and niyamas (restraints and observances) of yoga, including ahimsa (non - hurtfulness), meaning vegetarianism.
The rishi - lifestyle is recommended for optimal health for all. However, ayurveda is for all people, including those not yet ready for the spiritual life, who are still dominated by rajas and tamas. As such, ayurveda explains the qualities of meat and fish for those who are likely to consume them anyway, so that their intake is least harmful. However, for spiritual practices, ayurveda recommends vegetarianism.
The same is true of Hindu dharma overall. Hinduism recommends vegetarianism, and it is required for certain sadhanas and by certain sampradayas. But it does not say that they cannot be a Hindu if they eat meat!
A number of Hindu communities eat meat, particularly those in the Himalayas and the East of India, and also somewhat in Kashmir and Kerala. Those living by the ocean, particularly in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Bengal, often eat fish. Historically, Hindu Kshatriyas hunted and ate meat (though they practiced vegetarianism for sacred events).
- from Hinduism Today (April/ May/ June, 2016) __________________________________________________________________________
BHAGAVAD-GITA
The Bhagavad-Gita expounds on the virtues of compassion: "The humble sage by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [or outcaste].” (Bg.5.18)
Thus, a wise person recognizes the value of life, the soul, within all species of living beings. Because he recognizes the soul in all bodies, he does not cause any cruelty to them. Cruelty or suffering inflicted on any living being will certainly cause harm to ourselves and regression in our own development, spiritual or otherwise. Compassion and kindness to all beings is how we make spiritual progress. Is there anything that is really more important that this? As Lord Krishna explains:
“One who is not envious but who is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor, who is free from false ego and equal both in happiness and distress, who is always satisfied and engaged in devotional service with determination and whose mind and intelligence are in agreement with Me—he is very dear to Me.” (Bg.12.13-14)
Lord Krishna further explains in the Bhagavad-Gita (16.2-3): ahimsa or nonviolence is one of the transcendental qualities that belong to godly men endowed with divine nature. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who brought the Hare Krishna movement to the United States in 1966, wrote in "The Nectar of Devotion": Page 67) Not Giving Pain to Any Living Entity
This is the statement of the Mahabharata: "A person who does not disturb or cause painful action in the mind of any living entity, who treats everyone just like a loving father does his children, whose heart is so pure, certainly very soon becomes favored by the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
In so-called civilized society there is sometimes agitation against cruelty to animals, but at the same time regular slaughterhouses are always maintained. A Vaishnava is not like that. A Vaishnava can never support animal slaughter nor give pain to any living being. - by His Divine Grace Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada _______________________________________________________________
WORLD SCRIPTURES: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts - by The International Religious Foundation
Page 208 - 210
Hinduism: Mahabharata Shanti Parva 262.5-6
The mode of living which is founded upon a total harmlessness toward all creatures or (in the case of actual necessity) upon a minimum of such harm, is the highest morality.
Hinduism: Laws of Manu 5.48
Without doing injury to living beings, meat cannot be had anywhere; and the killing of living beings is not conducive to heaven; hence eating of meat should be avoided.
Hinduism: Rig Veda 6.28
The cows have come and brought us good fortune, may they stay in the stall and be pleased with us; may they live here, mothers of calves, many colored, and yield milk for Indra on many dawns . . .
They are not lost, nor do robbers injure them, nor the unfriendly frighten, nor wish to assail them; the master of cattle lives together long with these, and worships the gods and offers gifts.
The charger, whirling up dust, does not reach them, they never take their way to the slaughtering stool.
To me the cows are Bhaga, they are Indra, they (their milk) are a portion of the first - poured soma.
These that are cows are Indra, O people! The Indra I long for with heart and spirit.
Ye cows, you fatten the emaciated, and you make the unlovely look beautiful,
make our house happy, you with pleasant lowings. Your power is glorified in our assemblies. ________________________________________________________________
VEGETARIANISM: WHAT HINDU SCRIPTURES SAY How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh? - Tirukural 251
If the world did not purchase and consume meat, no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale - Tirukural 256
Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature - Tirukural 259
The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are 3 forms of killing. He who brings the flesh or sends for it, he who cuts the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it. All of these are to be considered meat - eaters. - Mahabharata Anu. 11540
Bhishma said: "That man who wishes to increase his own flesh by the meat of another living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel than he. In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his own life. Hence, one should show mercy to the lives of others as he does to his own life. Forsooth, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed . There is great sin attached to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it." - Mahabharata 116.11-13 ________________________________________________________________
SACRED COWS, SACRED PLACES: Origins and Survival of Animal Homes in India - by Deryck O. Lodrick
Page 13) Translated literally, goshala means "place for cows," thus giving some indication of the institution's traditional function in providing shelter for and maintaining old and disabled cattle. The word pinjrapole, on the other hand, appears to be derived from the Sanskrit panjara and pala, meaning "cage" and "protector," respectively, and the prime role of this institution is to serve as an asylum or refuge for animals of any species, or where medical treatment is provided, as an animal hospital.
Page 14) Despite this variety in terminology, the main purpose of the animal home in India would appear to be cow protection. Satish Das Gupta, for example, traces goshalas to the gorakshan samitas (cow-protection societies) of village india. Rather than slaughter cows that were unremunerative through old age or disability, groups of villagers joined together to look after the animals. Funds were provided by charity, and farmers and breeders contributed by paying taxes on their produce. Sardar Datar Singh, noting that most goshalas and pinjrapoles came into existence during the last 2 centuries, writes that they were funded to: . . . stop any further deterioration of the cow as a giver of milk and draught power and to give necessary protection to the cow from indiscriminate slaughter and to house those infirm animals which have served throughout their lives, during old age.
Shukla, on the other hand, feels that the institutions stem from man's "spontaneous desire to protect them (cattle) from suffering in old age."
Gandhi views pinjrapoles as "an answer to our instinct for mercy," and goshalas as "a refuge for all worn out and maimed cattle."
Page 16) The Pinjrapole
Inscribed in some prominent position over a door or gateway in all pinjrapoles can be found the words ahimsa paramo dharma (ahimsa is the greatest of religions). In this aphorism is summed up the entire raison d'etre of pinjrapoles, for it is the extension of ahimsa and the related concept of jiv-daya (compassion for life) to embrace all animals that accounts for the presence of the institutions in India today.
A typical pinjrapole thus offers asylum to a wide range of creatures. In May 1975, for example, the animal population of the Chhapriali Pinjrapole in Bhavnagar District, Gujarat, concsisted of 6 milk cows, 752 old, lame, and dry cows, 233 bullocks no longer capable of working, 14 working bullocks, 356 calves under 1 year old, 6 useless female buffalo, 72 male buffalo calves, 44 goats, 105 kids, 402 sheep, 9 horses, 1 hare, 1 monkey, and 1 deer.
If animals seen in other pinjrapoles are added, this list may be expanded to include rabbits, chickens, and peacocks (Rajkot Mahajan Pinjrapole), cats, dogs, and pigeons (Ahmedabad Pinjrapole) and camels and nilgai (Sayla Pinjrapole).
At a young age, Lord Krishna left the city of Mathura to live in the forest with the cowherds. Srivatsa Goswami, a Vaishnava scholar and devotee says that scriptures describe Krishna performing formal religious worship only twice, and on both these occasions he worshipped nature. Krishna, showed by example, that he preferred an earth - based religion which recognizes the sacred relationship between humans and nature. Similar to the Buddha's teachings, Krishna taught love for all beings, harmony with nature, not harming sentient beings, and rejoicing in a life of simplicity.
FROM the SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM:
When Krishna played His flute to call the cows, the river stopped flowing, her waters stunned with ecstacy. Instead of swimming or flying, the cranes, swans, ducks and other birds closed their eyes and entered a trance. The cows and deer stopped chewing, their ears raised. They became motionless like painted animals. - from the Srimad Bhagavatam 10.35
My dear father, our home is not in the cities or towns or villages. Being forest dwellers, we always live in the forest and among the hills. Therefore, begin a festival in honor of the cows, the brahmanas, and Govardhan Hill. Then Krishna went with them and worshipped the hill. In order to convince them, He assumed a gigantic mystical form and merged himself with the hill, demanding, "Feed me more!" He asked for the worship to be given equally to the mountain, the cows and the brahmanas as well as himself. - from Srimad Bhagavatam 10.24.25
The Srimad Bhagavatam relates how Krishna and his brother Balarama entered the forest with their cows: Krishna saw all the trees, overloaded with fruits and fresh twigs, coming down to touch the ground as if welcoming Him by touching His lotus feet. He was very pleased by the behavior of the trees, fruits and flowers, and He began to smile, realizing their desires.
Krishna then spoke to His elder brother as follows: "My dear brother, You are superior to all of us. Just see how these trees, full with fruits, have bent down to worship Your lotus feet. Just see how the peacocks in great ecstacy are dancing before You. The deer are welcoming You with the same affection. And cuckoos who reside in the forest are receiving You with great joy because they consider that Your appearance is so auspicious in their home. Even though they are trees and animals, these residents of Vrindavan are glorifying You. The herbs, creepers and plants are also fortunate to touch Your lotus feet. And by touching the twigs with Your hands, these small plants are also made glorious."
BUDDHA: CONSIDERED the 9th INCARNATION of VISHNU
Hindus consider the Buddha to be the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Buddha's teachings, including the Eightfold path and the Four Noble Truths are embraced by Hindus. Buddha's influence was a major factor in nearly eliminating ritual animal sacrifices in India, as he taught compassion for all living beings.
This compassion is revealed in the Srimad Bhagavatam:
One should treat animals such as deer, camels, asses, monkeys, snakes, birds and flies exactly like one's own children. How little difference there actually is between children and these innocent animals.
Krishna and his brother Balarama enter the forest: from the Srimad Bhagavatam:
Accompanied by the cowherd boys and Balarāma, Kṛiṣhṇa brought forward the cows and played on His flute through the forest of Vṛndāvana, which was full of flowers, vegetables, and pasturing grass. The Vṛndāvana forest was as sanctified as the clear mind of a devotee and was full of bees, flowers and fruits. There were chirping birds and clear water lakes with waters that could relieve one of all fatigues. Sweet flavored breezes blew always, refreshing the mind and body. Kṛiṣhṇa, with His friends and Balarāma, entered the forest and, seeing the favorable situation, enjoyed the atmosphere to the fullest extent. Kṛiṣhṇa saw all the trees, overloaded with fruits and fresh twigs, coming down to touch the ground as if welcoming Him by touching His lotus feet. He was very pleased by the behavior of the trees, fruits and flowers, and He began to smile realizing their desires. (Chapter 15: Killing of Dhenukasura)
…One day, when Kṛiṣhṇa, along with Balarāma, was maintaining the calves in the forest, They saw some cows grazing on the top of Govardhana Hill. The cows could see down into the valley where the calves were being taken care of by the boys. Suddenly, on sighting their calves, the cows began to run towards them. They leaped downhill with joined front and rear legs. The cows were so melted with affection for their calves that they did not care about the rough path from the top of Govardhana Hill down to the pasturing ground. They began to approach the calves with their milk bags full of milk, and they raised their tails upwards. When they were coming down the hill, their milk bags were pouring milk on the ground out of intense maternal affection for the calves, although they were not their own calves. These cows had their own calves, and the calves that were grazing beneath Govardhana Hill were larger; they were not expected to drink milk directly from the milk bag but were satisfied with the grass. Yet all the cows came immediately and began to lick their bodies, and the calves also began to suck milk from the milk bags. There appeared to be a great bondage of affection between the cows and calves. (Chapter 13: The Stealing of the Boys and Calves by Brahma) .… Kṛiṣhṇa was very pleased with the atmosphere of the forest where flowers bloomed and bees and drones hummed very jubilantly. While the birds, trees and branches were all looking very happy, Kṛiṣhṇa, tending the cows, accompanied by Śrī Balarāma and the cowherd boys … (Chapter 21 The Gopīs Attracted by the Flute)
