The killing living being for food is the greatest sin

[dattaswami]

You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food or for offering to God (applicable for all religions and all people including atheists)
Instead of killing a goat he or she can donate that money to very poor widows, children who cannot work, aged people so that they will utilize the money properly like buying medicine and basic food(not non-veg food) etc.


You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food. God has given enough vegetable food that contains all the ingredients present in the non-vegetarian food. After all, the source of ingredients of any flesh is only vegetable kingdom only. Eating the non-vegetarian food is not a sin because same ingredients exist in both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods. But, you have to kill a living being for the sake of non-vegetarian food. The killing is the greatest sin.

You may argue that you have not killed the living being directly. Such argument cannot stand. Since you are eating the non-vegetarian food, the living being is killed. You are responsible for its killing. Therefore, you are the principle shareholder of the sin.
There is nothing wrong if you eat a living being after its natural death. In Hinduism, there is a sect of people called ‘Kapalikas’, who eat the dead living beings. Therefore, they do not acquire sin.

The tsunami is always due to anger of God since you are killing the living beings present in water for food. The earthquakes are due to killing of living beings that exist on the earth. God in the form of Buddha and Mahavir preached the non-violence and severely opposed the killing of living beings.

God in some other human forms might have followed the practice of non-vegetarian food in order to join with non-vegetarian people so that, certain other higher aspects to be preached might have been taken into consideration. That does not mean that God has encouraged the killing of living beings through non-vegetarian food.

He might have kept silent on this issue in order to give importance to other serious issues. God follows the ignorance of the students in order to become friendly with them. To control a running bull, you have to run along with it for some distance before controlling it.
All these are the basic concepts of nivrutti, which are the core of pravrutti. By following the ethics of pravrutti, you will avoid God becoming furious with you. Then, through nivrutti, you can please God. On one hand, you are making God furious by not following the ethics of pravrutti and how can you please God through nivrutti simultaneously?

NEVER KILL ANIMALS! IT IS A GRAVE SIN

My dear disciple! Listen Me. Non-violence is the roof of the justice. The animal nature shall be killed and not the animal! If you succeed in pravrutti, God will drag you in Nivrutti also.

[The greatest sin is violence (ahimsaaparamodharmah), which means hurting or killing any good living being. People have misunderstood that animals are to be killed in sacrifice done for God. The Veda says that the animal to be killed is the rigid ignorance and stupidity of the animal-nature and not the actual animal itself (manyuhpashuh - Veda)!

The word ‘ajaa’ means goat as well as food grains stored for three years (so that they are not useful for germination) from which the flour is prepared and a paste of it is used to prepare the statue of the animal. Such statue of animal is to be cut as a symbolic act. Without understanding the latter intended sense, people have started killing the goats in sacrifice!
Any animal including cow or bird of soft nature should not be killed for the sake of food. Scripture says that a Brahmin should not be killed, but, Ravana (Brahmin) was killed by God. Brahmin means any living being (including human being) that does not harm you even if you harm it (ghaatamnaghaatayetviprah).

The deity of justice surrendered to God Datta in the form of a cow. Cow slaughter means slaughter of justice. If justice is slaughtered, the cow is slaughtered and not reverse. Any soft-natured animal including cow or bird or human being should not be slaughtered.
Slaughter of justice is the whole and slaughter of Cow is a part of it. This is the essence of the climax of justice. If you are not doing the three sins mentioned in the Gita, God will be very much pleased with you and pushes you in the path of Nivrutti also to make you His nearest and dearest!]
Plants only have the mechanical process of respiration but they do not have a nervous system for the generation of awareness. Mechanical respiration itself is called life (prāṇamaya kośa). But it is not the real meaning of life. Real life is found only in animals, which are zoological beings and not in plants, which are botanical beings.

The real meaning of life is the awareness generated by the nervous system (manomaya kośa). The awareness is produced in the nervous system as a result of the oxygen supplied by the process of respiration. But the mere supply of oxygen, without a functioning nervous system, cannot be called life.

When some living being is killed, the soul in it experiences torture. This torture is the greatest sin and avoiding such torture is the greatest among the good deeds (Ahimsa Paramo dharmah). For this reason only, the non-vegetarian food is prohibited by the scripture.
There is no difference between vegetarian food and non-vegetarian food since the chemical composition of both (like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals etc.,) is one and the same. Therefore, eating the non-vegetarian food is not a sin. The process of getting the non-vegetarian food by killing and torture is the sin. If one eats a living being, which is dead due to some accident, it is not wrong.

Eating a living being dead by disease or old age is avoided due to medical reasons. The Kapalikas eat dead bodies and are not considered as sinners. They are respected as the followers of a sacred branch of Hindu religion. Therefore, torture and violence is the main sin.

You should not argue that killing a living being in unconscious state by giving some anesthesia may not be sin. Any living being undergoes the pain of death in any unconscious state. Moreover, you are forcibly ending the life given by God in which a living being enjoys the facilities of creation and feels happy.

You must keep yourself in the place of such living being and understand the logic in the best way. You should not also argue that you are not directly killing the living being and hence, you are not the sinner. The living being is killed by somebody since people like you purchase it. Therefore, the sin is shared by you also (Kartaa kaarayitaa chaiva).

[Walker]

What is a body to do when it lives so far North, or at so high an altitude, or in a desert, where plant food is not available?

[dattaswami]

What is a body to do when it lives so far North, or at so high an altitude, or in a desert, where plant food is not available?

Some people argue that places like desert climates, vegetables could not be grown in their climatic and soil conditions. People had to survive with animals only as their livelihood and food. Therefore, their whole culture evolved as a heavy meat-eating culture and rituals had animal sacrifices.

Let us analyse the above argument.

This point is told as the climax of Pravrutti-ethics. “Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ” meaning that non-violence is the highest justice and violence is the highest injustice. In view of such climax importance given to non-violence, it is very difficult to find out an amicable solution for the problem presented by you. You have to examine whether things are so tightly closed from all sides without any trace of alternatives.

If the situation is such, we can only say that their cycle of lives is nothing but the cycle of wild animals living in the forest. If one enters such a wild-animal like cycle, the cycle continues forever and there is no salvation for such births. Even in the case of wild animals in forests, alternative vegetable food is provided by God if the souls wish to reform themselves. There must have been such alternatives in the case of these human beings, who are far far advanced than wild animals.

If such alternatives are absent, we have to think that it is a part of hell on earth. Both hell and heaven exist on earth also to give the fruits of intensive bad and good deeds. Please don’t misunderstand Me that I am very rigid here about the authority of the scripture. If you stand in the place of the animal that is killed for food, you will understand the pain received by the innocent animal, thereby you can realize how much sinful the deed is.

[Impenitent]

plants are living things as well

-Imp

[dattaswami]

plants are living things as well

-Imp

Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits.

They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita). They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal.

Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee(1 CENT) or one lakh rupees (1 MILLION $) from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

plants are living things as well

-Imp

Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits.

They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita). They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal.

Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee(1 CENT) or one lakh rupees (1 MILLION $) from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

I don't agree that intelligence doesn't exist in plants. Have you heard of mycelium? Trees communicate with each other via the mycelium network.

[Maia]

I have chosen to be a vegetarian for reasons of personal purification and health. I do not, however, consider eating meat to be morally wrong. After all, we have evolved to do exactly that, though we don't have to. My choice is my own.

[Age]

You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food or for offering to God (applicable for all religions and all people including atheists)
Instead of killing a goat he or she can donate that money to very poor widows, children who cannot work, aged people so that they will utilize the money properly like buying medicine and basic food(not non-veg food) etc.

LOL you speak as though money was some thing needed or some thing God would even want you to have.

Also, would you let "yourself" or children just die, of starvation, before you would eat an animal?

If yes, then you REALLY have NO idea AT ALL about WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY, nor about HOW God works, EXACTLY.

[Age]

I have chosen to be a vegetarian for reasons of personal purification and health. I do not, however, consider eating meat to be morally wrong. After all, we have evolved to do exactly that, though we don't have to. My choice is my own.

So, you have CHOSEN not to eat meat for very selfish reasons.

[Age]

What is a body to do when it lives so far North, or at so high an altitude, or in a desert, where plant food is not available?

According to "dattaswami", JUST DIE.

[Age]

What is a body to do when it lives so far North, or at so high an altitude, or in a desert, where plant food is not available?

Some people argue that places like desert climates, vegetables could not be grown in their climatic and soil conditions. People had to survive with animals only as their livelihood and food. Therefore, their whole culture evolved as a heavy meat-eating culture and rituals had animal sacrifices.

Let us analyse the above argument.

But just stating a Fact, like above, is NOT necessarily 'arguing' ANY thing.

This point is told as the climax of Pravrutti-ethics. “Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ” meaning that non-violence is the highest justice and violence is the highest injustice. In view of such climax importance given to non-violence, it is very difficult to find out an amicable solution for the problem presented by you. You have to examine whether things are so tightly closed from all sides without any trace of alternatives.

If the situation is such, we can only say that their cycle of lives is nothing but the cycle of wild animals living in the forest. If one enters such a wild-animal like cycle, the cycle continues forever and there is no salvation for such births. Even in the case of wild animals in forests, alternative vegetable food is provided by God if the souls wish to reform themselves. There must have been such alternatives in the case of these human beings, who are far far advanced than wild animals.

If such alternatives are absent, we have to think that it is a part of hell on earth. Both hell and heaven exist on earth also to give the fruits of intensive bad and good deeds. Please don’t misunderstand Me that I am very rigid here about the authority of the scripture. If you stand in the place of the animal that is killed for food, you will understand the pain received by the innocent animal, thereby you can realize how much sinful the deed is.

So, WHEN EXACTLY are you going to analyse the so-called 'argument'?

[Age]

plants are living things as well

-Imp

What has this got to do with what was being said above?

[Maia]

I have chosen to be a vegetarian for reasons of personal purification and health. I do not, however, consider eating meat to be morally wrong. After all, we have evolved to do exactly that, though we don't have to. My choice is my own.

So, you have CHOSEN not to eat meat for very selfish reasons.

The term selfish implies, I think, harming others, or at least disadvantaging them in some way. I'm not doing that.

[Age]

I have chosen to be a vegetarian for reasons of personal purification and health. I do not, however, consider eating meat to be morally wrong. After all, we have evolved to do exactly that, though we don't have to. My choice is my own.

So, you have CHOSEN not to eat meat for very selfish reasons.

The term selfish implies, I think, harming others, or at least disadvantaging them in some way. I'm not doing that.

I know, the term 'selfish' implies other things.

And, what you are doing is harming "others" anyway.

[Maia]

So, you have CHOSEN not to eat meat for very selfish reasons.

The term selfish implies, I think, harming others, or at least disadvantaging them in some way. I'm not doing that.

I know, the term 'selfish' implies other things.

And, what you are doing is harming "others" anyway.

How?