Talk:Vegetarianism and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vegetarianism and religion article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents 1 Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review) 2 Christian Vegetarianism 3 Enochian Literature 4 Mushrooms 5 Hindusim section needs NPOV 6 Question about vegetarianism and Islam 7 Baha'i and Abrahmic 8 Order of the page 9 Hinduism 10 Zoroastrianism 11 Religions of India 12 Is Jesus a vegetarian? 13 Requested move 13.1 Outcome

[edit] Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review)

I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Vegetarianism

The Acts quotes do not actually seem to prohibit the eating of meat, they just refer to maintaining the Jewish methods of killing an animal (i.e., don't strangle it, and drain it of blood). I recommend someone with more expertise review this area and edit if necessary. In all honesty, I feel that the Christian section is pretty far off-base and in no way does the New Testament seem to either encourage vegetarianism (note that Paul also declares all food "clean") or suggest the nascent church practiced vegetarianism.

[edit] Enochian Literature

The Epistle of Jude quotes 1 Enoch. The section seems to quote 2 Enoch (Old Slavonic version). They are two different texts.

[edit] Mushrooms

DaGizza, While these sites are not directly talking about mushrooms and the Hindu vegetarian diet (which is why I hesitated putting them in the main page), they reference the fact that they are prohibited in the diet.

[2] says Marketing of mushroom is very difficult as still many consider it a non-vegetarian food. The buyers avoid them on auspicious days and [3] says not only is beef not to be eaten, but in addition all meats should be abstained from as well as garlic, onions, and mushrooms.

I know several Brahmin families that avoid the mushroom for the same reason. --Pranathi 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindusim section needs NPOV

The section is not factual. Of all the hindu population less that ten percent are vegetarians. Most of hindus are meat-eaters which includes beef. To represent that most hindus are vegetarians is to use wiki for meaningless propaganda. I really want to have a serious debate about this section before the section can be given a facelift. As a fellow-hindu, I feel that my religion is being hijacked by a few extreme elements. --C9

However, from what I can see, the scriptures of Hindusim do not prompt meat-eating, unless a special sacrifice takes place. So to say it is extreme to follow the recommendations of the scriptures that Hindu's are supposedly follow.... Dwayne Kirkwood 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

C9, Vegetarian Hindus are 20-40% of the Hindu population. See the references for these statistics in the vegetarian page. Beef is consumed by a minority of Hindus. Please show references for your statements to engage in the debate. --Pranathi 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Krishna makes the following statements in the Bhagavad Gita which are often quoted as being in favour of the vegetarian diet :

• Bhagavad Gita 3.13
• Bhagavad Gita 9.26

As I understand it a diet of vegetarian prasad is promoted as the ideal within the Vedic and Puranic scriptures which constitute the philosophical basis of Hinduism. Meat-eating although not forbidden, is generally not promoted due to it's negative karmic consequences to all but the warrior caste. GourangaUK 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that Hinduism only requires Brahman's to be vegetarian? In a way, this suggests a preference for vegetarianism, since this class is deemed to be the "highest."

Brahmins are the priestly class in Hinduism, but vegetarian diet is promoted in a number of scriptures as the ideal diet for for anyone interested in spiritual life, not just the official temple priests. GourangaUK 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about what the the scriptures recommend. I am talking about reality. The question one needs to ask is this - Are hindus as a whole be deemed as vegetarians? The answer is NO. Do you regard, a meat-eating person not belonging to warrior caste, as a non-hindu? The answer is NO. It is open to interpretation that scriptures recommend vegetarianism for hindus(sans warrior caste). However there is nothing in scriptures that outcasts a meat-eating hindu. Meat continues to be a staple diet in many hindu families. How illogical is the conclusion that a soldier needs to be strong and hence could eat meat. Farmers need to be strong too. And for unknown reasons I see some people playing wiki like a spin zone. I need this issue addressed as soon as possible. C9

But if one is not following the scriptures of Hinduism, then how can they call themselves a Hindu? The warrior and kingly classes traditionally hunted animals in the forest not for strength (which can be gained perfectly well from a vegetarian diet) but for practice in the art of killing. As stated above by Pranathi: "Vegetarian Hindus are 20-40% of the Hindu population. See the references for these statistics in the vegetarian page. Beef is consumed by a minority of Hindus. Please show references for your statements to engage in the debate." Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I dont need any references to make my point. Do I need references to prove that beef is a staple food in UK? Its more like stating the obvious. Majority hindus are meat-eaters. I am stating the obvious. You know it as well as I do.

For your question about scriptures and hinduism - unlike other religions, hindus are born. Hinduism is propagated through brooding and not through spiritual interaction. Following scriptures is NOT the way hinduism is practised. This is not to say that no one follows the scriptures. Just that they are very few and too far between. Ironically, a high percentage of the "few" learned ones happen to be educated and internet-savvy who tend to put this kind of spin that most hindus are vegetarians and other false propoganda. In a way these "few" are actually representing themselves and not the country as a whole. That is why this article needs an NPOV.

The bottomline is - Hinduism is a way of life and meat-eating is very much a intricate part of the way. Even if I go by Pranathi's reference if 20-40% are vegetarian hindus then 60-80% are meat-eating hindus right. That is exactly my point. This article needs to reflect that a majority of hindus are meat-eaters and I am going to make that update. -- C9

To quote your reply "unlike other religions, hindus are born. Hinduism is propagated through brooding and not through spiritual interaction. Following scriptures is NOT the way hinduism is practised". I rest my case. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I do not know where you rest your case. If you affirm the above quoted statement I made previously, then you should not use scriptures to determine the meat eating status of hindus. I have seen that you have overridden my updates and do not provide any meaningful reasons for doing so, except that fact that the stuff was there before. That's not how wiki should work.

This time I am providing an explanation for my updates.

Changing - "Most practising Hindus are at least semi-vegetarians, refraining from beef and eating other forms of meat rarely."

To - "Most Hindus are at least semi-vegetarians, refraining from beef."

Explanation - The phrase ".. and eating other forms of meat rarely." is categorically false. Hindus regularly eat meat. Though some Hindus do eat beef, many hindus might not prefer beef since cow is considered sacred. Again I have to make this distinction - Cow being sacred is a popular sentiment, as opposed to something being dictated by the scriptures. A majority of hindus do consider cow as sacred but do not even care the basis for such a sentiment. However you cannot extend this to all other meat products. Also there is no such thing as a practising hindu. People are born hindus, they live as hindus and they die as hindus. For example, not going to temple or not doing pooja or not knowing scriptures does not disqualify one from being a hindu. This might not be true in many other religions.

Changing - "For instance, the Ādivāsīs, the Kshatriyas as well as the coastal habitants in India are largely non-vegetarian (fish eating), with vegetarianism dominant (although still not exclusive) in landlocked states of northern and western India, states like Gujarat (with Jain and Vaishnavic influence), and in most Brahmin and Marwari communities in and around the subcontinent."

To - Vegetarianism is dominant (although still not exclusive) (with Jain and Vaishnavic influence), and in most Brahmin and Marwari communities in and around the subcontinent.

Explanation - The phrase "(fish eating)" kind of implies that coastal hindus do not eat other meat like lamb, goat or chicken. I think it is inappropriate. Also the dominance of vegeterianism is true in specific communities like jains and brahmins, it cannot be applied to the whole region. Remember even by using your side of the argument 60-80% are meat eating hindus. So you dont want to spin by implicating a couple of communities as meat eaters. Mentioning Jains and Brahmins is appropriate. You can add other vegetarian communities if you wish.

Removed - "Most non-vegetarian practising Hindus maintain a vegetarian diet on religious days."

Explanation - This statement is not factual. As a matter of fact they even have some religious days that require animal sacrifice as a ritual. Other celebrations and ceremonies routinely include meat cuisine. I removed this line as it seems you want to drive home a meaningless point that there is a breed called practising hindus that prefer vegetarinism. There is no such thing. Hindus are Hindus. 60-80% of them are meat eaters and this estimate is from your side of the argument. Period. :) --C9

I've made a number of edits to the section today in order to improve accuracy, and included relevant scriptural quotations. I agree that some statements were a bit too generalising, but still feel that we should distinguish between Vegetarianism in India and Vegeterianism in Hinduism as there is a significant difference. Would you trust a doctor to perform an operation on you just because his father was also a doctor, but he had received no formal training? Of course not, no-one is not born a doctor, one becomes a doctor by receiving training from experienced doctors, studying medical texts and a lot of personal hard-work and effort. So it is with spiritual life within Hinduism. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK is correct here. I find the figures of less than 10% of Hindu as vegeterians unbelievable. From my experience, about 70%+ of Hindus I know of in India and abroad are Hindus, which doesn't take into account people from poorer backgrounds in most cases. But I don't know where these small percentages pop up from. In terms of caste (not varnas), in North India Brahmins and Vaishyas are not supposed to eat meat according to my general knowledge. Kshatriyas eat are traditionally allowed to meat for strength when fighting battles. Of course it isn't always exactly like this in reality. The funny thing is that if I ask any Indian I know of, they will probably estimate at about 50%. I am only a semi-vegetarian, though I don't meat on Tuesdays, Holy Days or during times of Fasting. To be pedantic, the chances of a devout Hindu being veg is much greater than a less religious Hindu, so in that sense there is a very strong correlation between vegetarianism and Hinduism. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that can be mentioned is that no meat is allowed to be eaten in temples, at least in mainstream denominations of Hinduism nor at holy sites like the Ganges River. Prashad cannot be in the form of meat, which can be supported by one line in the Gita somewhere (can't be bothered to find it) and probably many other scriptures. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about vegetarianism and Islam

The article mentions that some sufi sects or orders have taken to vegetarianism. Can anyone name a specific sect? Siyavash 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do "Mana and Safa" mean anything to you? ^[1]. I personaly have no idea about islamic sects. --Mig77 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Continued list of Vegetarian and Vegan Elite of the World (poor quality reference)[1]

[edit] Baha'i and Abrahmic

Certainly Baha'i faith claims Abrahmic descent, and could very well be classified as such. However since they also draw from practical all other faiths too, it is impropper to place them under Abrahamic in this classification. It implies that they are mainly or even possibly exclusively Abramic when they are emphaticaly not. Thus I believe that it is more appropriate to keep them under the heading of other (and at the top since they are larger than the other others). --Mig77^(t) 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Baha'i Faith is very much Abrahamic. It follows the same line of prophets from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad, and then Bab and Baha'u'llah, who claimed to fulfill the prophetic statements regarding the return of the Mahdi (in Islam) and Jesus (in Christianity and Islam). Secondly Baha'u'llah claimed to be a descendent of Abraham through Abraham's third wife Katurah, as well as by Sasan, wife of Cyrus, who was a daughter of Davidic lineage. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi (Baha'u'llah's great-grandson) identifies Bahá'u'lláh as a descendent of Jesse, who is in turn descended from Abraham through Isaac. Certainly beyond the average Bahá'í believing it without much research, there are lots of internal claims to prophetic inheritance from Abraham, both lineally and by tradition. In that the Baha'i Faith holds other religions such as Buddhism, and Hinduism (and certainly not all faiths) as true (but misunderstood by its current adherents), does not invalidate the above statements.

Furthermore, the Baha'i Faith does not really draw from other faiths, other than saying that they were from the same one God, and believing that they were originally teaching the same message. Far and away, the Baha'i Faith is much more Abrahamic than Dharmic. -- Jeff3000 15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok you seem to have your ducks in a row. However I dont find reference to Baha'u'llah claim of Abrahamic descent. It is besides a very weak argument. A good argument which I happen to agree with, after careful examination, is that the Baha'i Faith:

1. rejects idolatry
2. is monotheistic

And does so because of the teachings of Abaraham. This convinces me of Baha'i's statas as Abrahamic. I therefore appologise for my previous edit made in error, as I was mistaken in my understanding of this term.

However this does make me question this form of classification, since it is a controversial one. Perhaps Monotheistic / Polytheistic / Other would be better? --Mig77^(t) 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Baha'i belief regarding Baha'u'llah's descendency from Abraham, see God Passes By, p. 94. Regarding Baha'u'llah's claimed revelation in the same prophetic tradition as Abraham see the Baha'i Britannica article from 1988 (only one I have). (Note: however, Baha'is believe that it's not specifically because of the teachings of Abraham, but because of the same one God who sent Abraham, along with the other Manifestations of God, who instructed the Messengers to teach) And the Baha'i Faith does indeed reject idolatry, and is a strong monotheistic (in opposition to Christianity which some argue can sometimes be looked upon as tritheistic due to the doctrine of the trinity). I agree, a Monothesitic/Polytheistic classification is probably better. Regards. -- Jeff3000 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Monotheistic/Polytheistic would not work as at least Sikhism unlike Hinduism is monotheistic rather than polytheistic - but Sikhism is very Dharmic like Hinduism. So, I think now that the Baha'i faith has settled into its correct grouping, we should leave these categories intact as it makes sense to divide them into say 3 or 4 groups rather than deal with 20 or more individual religions. The article List of religions makes this division and the benefits seem clear from just looking at the long list of religions in each of these groupings --Hari Singh 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the page

I see recently that someone has reverted the page back into date order - which I agree makes much more sense in this article. Giving that the 'religions' more associated with a vegetarian diet also tend to be the oldest ones. In terms of relevancy it seems appropriate. GourangaUK 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. According to the Abrahmic texts when man was created he was only permitted a vegetarian diet. Only after the great flood of Noah was meat eating permitted (see Genisis). I am not sure where in time Hinduism places the requirement of vegetarianism, but I dont see how a point before the creation of man can be bested. (These views may not represent my personal beliefs) --09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but without getting into a biblical time-line debate it still seems to make more sense to me to have the dharmic religions (Hinduism and Jainism especially) as the first groups for discussion in the article as vegetarianism is more important in these traditions - or at least they are more well known as promoters of vegetarianism. It looks back to front otherwise to have religious groups of whomn the majority do not follow a vegetarian diet as being the first points the article. I understand this could be classed as a somewhat subjective argument, but from a common-sense perspective surely it is logical? GourangaUK 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

I plan some changes in the section on Hinduism, for the following reasons:

1. The present structure of the section should be improved. There should be a historical subsection first - the historical background is completely absent so far. The article offers no information on the conflict between the views of vegetarians and meat eaters in the course of history, which is reflected in the sources.

2. The second subsection, "Scriptural viewpoint", is incomplete. It should contain all the essential quotes from scriptures including the ones which permit meat eating under specified conditions. The present collection of quotes gives the impression that all scriptures just recommended or even enjoined vegetarianism - so one wonders, if Krishna and the Hindu deities disapproved of killing and meat eating, then how could the brahmins dare to sacrifice animals to the gods and to eat their meat regularly in the Vedic period and even much later, for so many centuries? Either meat is a pure and valuable commodity and as such suitable for Prasad, or not. If it is, then there is no point advocating vegetarianism. If it isn't, then why are there so many statements in scriptures and other ancient texts declaring that animal sacrifice and subsequent meat eating is o.k.? The reader of the article should learn something about such contradictions, and possible explanations suggested by unbiased scholars.

The changes mentioned above will enlarge the section. As there is already a separate article on Buddhist vegetarianism, it may make sense to create one on Hindu vegetarianism as well. 89.54.149.21 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change the section into an historical one - it needs to provide details, largely in regards to Hinduism as it exists now with appropriate scriptural references etc... Animal sacrifices within Vedic times are a different issue. A number of contemporary Hindu scholars also describe that the Brahmins of that particular period are believed to have "abused the system" - but that's getting into too much specific detail for this article in my opinion. If there were quotes from scripture which promote or advocate a diet which includes meat (not simply a reference to animal sacrifices) then I would see that as relevant.Gouranga(UK) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, but the fact remains that the present structure is not satisfying, and the presentation of the stuff is not concise. It is not well organized. There should be a clear distinction between the contents of the three subsections. The first subsection should comprise a summary of different viewpoints in the relevant sources; the second subsection should only consist of quotes of essential scriptural passages directly relevant for vegetarianism; the third subsection should be made more concise (removing matters which don’t concern vegetarianism, such as alcohol, onions, mushrooms; removing repetitions of stuff already mentioned above). I have started to work on this and hope to finish it soon. 89.49.137.254 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the "scriptural viewpoint" is rather dubious, in terms of WP:SYN. "Yajur Veda 12.32" is handed around on the internet, but this is not an actual citation. YV VSM 12.32 runs "Agni, go forth resplendent, thou with thine auspicious flames of fire. Shining with mighty beams of light harm not my people with thy form."[4]. YV TS has books 1-7 only. I don't doubt this verse exists, but it has to be cited properly, including, whose translation is this. The RV verse is against cow-eating and man-eating demons and has nothing to do with vegetarianism. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After wasting a lot of time trying in vain to verify the Yajurveda quote, I had already decided to remove both quotes in the new version which will be finished very soon. As for the Rigveda quote, I found three translations which differ considerably from the one given in this article and from each other. Ralph Griffith (Hymns of the Rigveda vol. II, 1987, p. 552) translates: "The fiend who smears himself with flesh of cattle, with flesh of horses and of human bodies, who steals the milch-cow's milk away, o Agni - tear off the heads of such with fiery fury." The translation by Ravi Prakash Arya and K.L. Joshi (Rgveda samhita vol. 4, 2001, p. 413) reads: "The Yatudhana, who fills himself with the flesh of man, and he who fills himself with the flesh of horses or of other animals, and he who steals the milk of the cow - cut off their heads with your flame." The translation by Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati (Rgveda samhita vol. 13, 1987, p. 4467) reads: "O fire-divine, may you tear off the heads of the evil-spirited cannibal who lives on the flesh of men and who satisfies himself with the flesh of horses and cattle and who steals for himself the milk of milch-cow." All these translations, particularly the one in the article, seem to contain some interpretation on the part of the translators. None of them points out that it's a demon. 89.54.149.2 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Alsdorf in his paper "Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien" p. 592-593 discusses an interesting episode dealing with vegetarianism in "Mahabharata XII 246", but I can't find it there or in the neighbouring sections. I don't believe it's a mistake on his part. There are different counts of the sections of that book. Do you know whether there is an online concordance for this? 89.54.149.2 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroastrianism

I got several claims on several websites about Zoroastrian ideas on vegetarianism, but none seem to conform to WP:RS. If someone can verify these against reliable sources, that would be great.

• "According to Colin Spencer in The Heretic's Feast, Zoroaster was not only a vegetarian, he also disavowed animal sacrifice." [5]

• High Priest Atrupat-e Emetan in Denkard Book VI:

"ku.san enez a-on ku urwar xwarishn bawed shmah mardoman ku derziwishn bawed, ud az tan i gospand pahrezed, ce amar was, eg Ohrmaz i xwaday hay.yarih i gospand ray urwar was dad."

"They hold this also: Be plant eaters (urwar xwarishn) (i.e vegetarian), O you, men , so that you may live long. Keep away from the body of cattle (tan i gospand), and deeply reckon that Ohrmazd, the Lord has created plants in great number for helping cattle (and men)." [6]

• "The Shah Namah states that the evil king of Iran, Zohak was first taught eating meat by the evil one who came to him in the guise of a cook. This was the start of an age of great evil for Iran. Prior to this, in the Golden age of mankind in the days of the great Aryan Kings, man did not eat meat." [7]

• "The Pahlavi scriptures state that in the final stages of the world, when the final Saviour Saoshyant arrives, man will become more spiritual and gradually give up meat eating. " [8] (and other sources)

deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religions of India

The title "Religions of India" (instead of "Dharmic Religions") seems to be inappropriate, as most Buddhists live outside of India. "Religions of Indian origin" may be better. 89.54.146.21 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Jesus a vegetarian?

One of the miracles that Jesus performed is about 5 loaves and 10 fishes. Isn't Him eating the fishes?

After His resurrection, He asked His disciples to give something for Him to eat. They gave him some fish and He ate them.

Based on these facts, Jesus Himself is not a vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.89 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is disputed whether he was or wasn't [9]. nirvana2013 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move