Introduction
It has been a topic of great interest for me to find out if eating of meat is truly a sin, as it is often made out to be by self-righteous vegetarians. Even more so, after I converted to vegetarianism. It is true that man likes to impose his personal ideas as the right path for his fellow-men. For extraordinary human beings, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it often benefits mankind. My intention is not to research the actual effects of meat-eating, but to verify historical claims that the ancients of India have always been vegetarian.
It is one thing to explain to people the benefits of vegetarianism, tell them that you believe in it, and you think it would benefit them. It is quite another to use the names of respected ancients to propound your philosophy. My effort in this ongoing article is to research this claim whether the ancients truly were vegetarians. I shall try to do so with links to texts wherever possible.
I'd like to add, that I personally believe that vegetarianism is good for health, and can help in the practice of spirituality, because that works for me.
The Codebook of Manu
One of the oldest referred scriptures in India is the code book of Manu, the giver of laws. This contains various laws as to the functioning of society. Even today, wannabe lawyers in good schools study this code book in their curriculum (NUJS does).
From the Manu Smrti,
"There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards" - verse 56
"By subsisting on fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh" - verse 54. [Ref]
It is important to see this in perspective. Manu Smrti clearly lays down that it is NOT a sin to eat meat. However, it recommends abstinence for the rewards are great.
The story of Ilvala
Agastya muni, who is known as the founder of the South Indian Vedic civilization, had a famous encounter with the demon Ilvala. It is said that Ilvala had a brother, named Vatapi. Vatapi could turn himself into a ram. Then he'd be led to sacrifices by unwitting Brahmins. After he was eaten up, Ilvala, using her occult powers, would summon him - and he'd burst out from the stomachs of all the people who had eaten him, and would become whole again(killing the eaters in the process). Agastya muni was approached to help rid this menace. The great muni went to the demon, and was offered the ram meat. He ate it. Then, as Ilvala tried getting her brother out, Agastya muni burst into laughter. He told Ilvala that he had digested Vatapi completely, and the fiend wouldnt come out anymore. Ilvala was terrified and begged for mercy. It is said Agastya directed the demoness to a spiritual path after that.
This story proves without a doubt that Brahmins of the time of Muni Agastya were meat-eaters, for there was no other way that they would sacrifice and eat the meat of a ram. Agastya muni dates from the time of the Ramayana - which would be definitely earlier than 4500 BC (Krishna is dated to be around 3200-3150 BC).
There is another interesting aspect to this story - that these were not just any Brahmins, but South Indian Brahmins, who today claim that they've historically been vegetarian.
Again, I'd like to add, that it is definitely good to be vegetarian, but it is not a fact that historically, South Indian Brahmins have been vegetarian.
The Bhagvad Gita
This is believed to be the nectar from the Upanishads, the summary to speak of. It is the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna in the battlefield - with Lord Krishna explaining to Arjuna why he must uphold his duty and fight.
The Gita is often treated as a reference text on how we should lead our lives. It is a truly marvellous document of sociology, and is so utterly logical that it makes an interesting read for people studying logic or engineering.
To come to the point, I've often heard that the Gita prohibits the consumption of meat, and hence followers of the Gita should abstain. Let us study this claim.From the commentary of Adi Sankaracharya on the Gita, Chapter 17, verses 7-10 :
7: "Food also, which is dear to all, is of three kinds; and so also are sacrifices, austerity and charity. Listen to this classification of them."
8: "Foods that augment life, firmness of mind, strength, health, happiness and delight, and which are succulent, oleaginous, substantial and agreeable, are dear to one endowed with sattva."
9: "Foods that are bitter, sour, salty, very hot, pungent, dry and burning, and which produce pain, sorrow and disease, are dear to one having rajas.
10: "Food which is not properly cooked, lacking in essence, putrid and stale, and even ort and that which is unfit for sacrifice, is dear to one possessed of tamas.
It is so surprising that we do not find any mention of meat in the "rajas" or "tamas" categories. For if it is truly bad, Lord Krishna could have, in one splendid verse, proclaimed so, and so many millions would have followed. But he didnt.
On the contrary, most of the vegetarian food eaten in Northern and Southern India would easily come under the category of "sour, salty, very hot, pungent..." - hardly sattvic.
Opponents may argue that the interpretation of verse 10 - "that which is unfit for sacrifice" would apply to meat, thus bringing it to the tamasic category. However, such an argument does not hold merit, as we've just examined the story of Agastya Muni and Ilvala, wherein a ram was being sacrificed and eaten. Unfit for sacrifice would in fact apply to meat that has any injury or wound on its body - which is said to make it unholy to offer God. It maybe added that such a concept augurs well with the sense of personal hygiene, as participants in the yajna would partake of the meat afterward.
It is also known that the Ashwamedha Yajna consisted of sacrificing horses and eating their meat. We shall be touching on this a little later.
Opponents may further argue, that meat is "putrid and stale" - but such an argument usually comes from ignorance - no non-vegetarian eats putrid or stale meat, for that is a serious health risk. It is known that meat suppliers have to undergo strict checks for its freshness and non-contamination. It is definitely true that meat gets putrid and stale faster than vegetables, but such meat can be considered poisonous and no meat-eater in his sane mind knowingly eats rotten meat.
Verse 9 is of particular interest when it is applied to Indian cooking - that often borders on the pungent or hot. It should not be construed that all of vegetarian Indian cuisine is sattvic.
Verse 8 sheds light on what the criterion of sattvic food is - and if meat is cooked in that manner, it is hard to dispute that such food should not be considered sattvic.
Our observation from these verses is that - there is no clear indictment of meat, when there should have been if meat-eating is sinful. The reason for this might probably be that people in the period were avid meat-eaters.
The Ashwamedha Yajna
The Ashwamedha Yajna is a famous sacrifice, in which a king interested in "world-domination" would send out a sacrificial horse through the territories of neighbouring kings. This was done to establish the strength of the king, as anyone who stopped the horse would have to face the might of the king's army. Either there'd be battle, or the neightbouring kings would yield and pay tribute. What is interesting is that, at the end of the sacrifice, all the kings, rishis and brahmins would get together, and would partake the horse-meat that was offered in sacrifice. It is very hard to believe that a pure-vegetarian civilization would conjure up such a non-vegetarian sacrifice.
Continuing with this, it is a known fact that two of the greatest kings of India performed this sacrifice. One was Lord Rama, an avatar of Vishnu. His horse was stopped by his own sons - Luv and Kush. As Lord Rama performed this sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Lord had consumed the meat of the horse, and was therefore a non-vegetarian.
The second king worthy of mention was Yuddhisthira, and in his yajna, all the Pandavas and Lord Krishna participated. That means, Lord Krishna and the Pandavas had to take the horse-meat at the end. Was Lord Krishna non-vegetarian ? Such an idea now seems logical as Lord Krishna was a kshatriya (warrior) and a king. It was standard practice for warriors to eat meat, as they had to wage war - and it is not possible to have good warriors who cannot kill.
It is also known that Lord Rama's father Dasrath would go hunting, for that was how he shot Shravan Kumar and got cursed. The question is, what did Dasrath do after he killed the deer or the animal that he was hunting ? It is usual tradition for the slain animal to be cooked in the palace, a tradition that continued right upto the 20th century, when India had its last kings. If it were otherwise, it would turn most ancient kings into sadists interested in satisfying killing instincts for no sensible purpose. I would definitely not think that our noble vedic kings would have been given to such sadistic pleasure, especially as they were the trendsetters of their generation and for several future generations.
