Do Hindus eat beef 🥩 ??

[Hector8]

yes .... 

 

 

 

Jai sri ram

[Hector8]

There are many references in the Ramayana where Rama, followed by Lakshmana killed animals for their need.

In these two verses, Rama is urging Sita to eat of the flesh. Many people say that मांस meams flesh in general and not necessarily animal flesh and that Rama may have referred to the flesh of a fruit he found for eating maybe. I agree to this. But in the second verse, Rama mentions that it is roasted flesh. As far as I know, we never cook fruits before eating. Many people contradict this by saying that “What if it was a vegetable which was roasted?” And this time they are wrong. Roasted vegetables are not fleshy, they are crunchy. On the other hand, Rama was in a dense forest, not in a farmland where he could get vegetables. Fruits and animals are more easy to find in such places. It clearly refers to animal flesh.

There are many arguments which are posted against this: firstly, some people say that they only hunted the animals, not necessarily ate them. Ah, but they did hunt them didn't they? According to me, when people say that meat eating is a sin most of them don't realise where the sin lies. In my view, the sin is not in eating the animal, it is in killing and causing harm to the animal. What you do with the dead body of an animal after you have taken its life is not really counted as sin (unless it causes further harm to someone else) because a dead being can't feel agony or pain.

Secondly, I researched and discovered that the word मेध्य means pure portions but it also means “Barley”, but like i said earlier, where were they supposed to find Barley in a dense forest?

In these verses, animal sacrifice is clearly mentioned. Once again it may be argued that मास in general means flesh (which may not be of an animal necessarily) but ऐणेय means “black antelope” and refers to no fruit or any other animal.

These were Sita's words to Ravana (who had come in the guise of an alms seeking Brahmana) initially when she didn't know what was coming next.

Again, it could be argued that Rama might be hunting animals and may be he would bring fruits as food later. This argument is strengthened by the belief that Brahmanas were not supposed to eat nonveg stuff. But the word अमिष clearly means “flesh” or “carnivorous”. I couldn't find any other sensible meaning in the dictionary. So that means the two things are related. Sita expects Rama to bring flesh.

Once more a case of animal sacrifice. This time, in the Honor of Jatayu who gave his life attempting to free Sita from Ravana.

So there are mentions of animal killing for various purposes. And it includes eating too. So one can't necessarily say that Rama wasn't a non-vegetarian.

[DummyVariable]

14 minutes ago, Hector8 said:

There are many references in the Ramayana where Rama, followed by Lakshmana killed animals for their need.

In these two verses, Rama is urging Sita to eat of the flesh. Many people say that मांस meams flesh in general and not necessarily animal flesh and that Rama may have referred to the flesh of a fruit he found for eating maybe. I agree to this. But in the second verse, Rama mentions that it is roasted flesh. As far as I know, we never cook fruits before eating. Many people contradict this by saying that “What if it was a vegetable which was roasted?” And this time they are wrong. Roasted vegetables are not fleshy, they are crunchy. On the other hand, Rama was in a dense forest, not in a farmland where he could get vegetables. Fruits and animals are more easy to find in such places. It clearly refers to animal flesh.

There are many arguments which are posted against this: firstly, some people say that they only hunted the animals, not necessarily ate them. Ah, but they did hunt them didn't they? According to me, when people say that meat eating is a sin most of them don't realise where the sin lies. In my view, the sin is not in eating the animal, it is in killing and causing harm to the animal. What you do with the dead body of an animal after you have taken its life is not really counted as sin (unless it causes further harm to someone else) because a dead being can't feel agony or pain.

Secondly, I researched and discovered that the word मेध्य means pure portions but it also means “Barley”, but like i said earlier, where were they supposed to find Barley in a dense forest?

In these verses, animal sacrifice is clearly mentioned. Once again it may be argued that मास in general means flesh (which may not be of an animal necessarily) but ऐणेय means “black antelope” and refers to no fruit or any other animal.

These were Sita's words to Ravana (who had come in the guise of an alms seeking Brahmana) initially when she didn't know what was coming next.

Again, it could be argued that Rama might be hunting animals and may be he would bring fruits as food later. This argument is strengthened by the belief that Brahmanas were not supposed to eat nonveg stuff. But the word अमिष clearly means “flesh” or “carnivorous”. I couldn't find any other sensible meaning in the dictionary. So that means the two things are related. Sita expects Rama to bring flesh.

Once more a case of animal sacrifice. This time, in the Honor of Jatayu who gave his life attempting to free Sita from Ravana.

So there are mentions of animal killing for various purposes. And it includes eating too. So one can't necessarily say that Rama wasn't a non-vegetarian.

What is this? Topic is not about vegetarianism though.. 

[Thokkalee]

1 hour ago, Hector8 said:

There are many references in the Ramayana where Rama, followed by Lakshmana killed animals for their need.

In these two verses, Rama is urging Sita to eat of the flesh. Many people say that मांस meams flesh in general and not necessarily animal flesh and that Rama may have referred to the flesh of a fruit he found for eating maybe. I agree to this. But in the second verse, Rama mentions that it is roasted flesh. As far as I know, we never cook fruits before eating. Many people contradict this by saying that “What if it was a vegetable which was roasted?” And this time they are wrong. Roasted vegetables are not fleshy, they are crunchy. On the other hand, Rama was in a dense forest, not in a farmland where he could get vegetables. Fruits and animals are more easy to find in such places. It clearly refers to animal flesh.

There are many arguments which are posted against this: firstly, some people say that they only hunted the animals, not necessarily ate them. Ah, but they did hunt them didn't they? According to me, when people say that meat eating is a sin most of them don't realise where the sin lies. In my view, the sin is not in eating the animal, it is in killing and causing harm to the animal. What you do with the dead body of an animal after you have taken its life is not really counted as sin (unless it causes further harm to someone else) because a dead being can't feel agony or pain.

Secondly, I researched and discovered that the word मेध्य means pure portions but it also means “Barley”, but like i said earlier, where were they supposed to find Barley in a dense forest?

In these verses, animal sacrifice is clearly mentioned. Once again it may be argued that मास in general means flesh (which may not be of an animal necessarily) but ऐणेय means “black antelope” and refers to no fruit or any other animal.

These were Sita's words to Ravana (who had come in the guise of an alms seeking Brahmana) initially when she didn't know what was coming next.

Again, it could be argued that Rama might be hunting animals and may be he would bring fruits as food later. This argument is strengthened by the belief that Brahmanas were not supposed to eat nonveg stuff. But the word अमिष clearly means “flesh” or “carnivorous”. I couldn't find any other sensible meaning in the dictionary. So that means the two things are related. Sita expects Rama to bring flesh.

Once more a case of animal sacrifice. This time, in the Honor of Jatayu who gave his life attempting to free Sita from Ravana.

So there are mentions of animal killing for various purposes. And it includes eating too. So one can't necessarily say that Rama wasn't a non-vegetarian.

Rama was a king... and most Kings were non-vegetarians... I think the subject is about which animals can be used for meat and which cannot... 

[Lonelyloner]

1 minute ago, Thokkalee said:

Rama was a king... and most Kings were non-vegetarians... I think the subject is about which animals can be used for meat and which cannot... 

Wrong....Kings used to eat meat

Its only brahmins who do not eat

[Lonelyloner]

You people only made him god and now after bjp in power you took u turn for politics.

lol

sanghis rss

[Daaarling]

Hindus lo kuda alanti daridrulu unnaru

[Rushabhi]

1 hour ago, Lonelyloner said:

Wrong....Kings used to eat meat

Its only brahmins who do not eat

Aayana cheppindi kooda adhe 

[Rushabhi]

1 hour ago, Lonelyloner said:

You people only made him god and now after bjp in power you took u turn for politics.

lol

sanghis rss

Of course he used to eat meat. He was a Muslim why won’t he eat? He was revered equally both by Muslims and Hindus. In his book also it is written about it. 

[Pachhiboothu]

hindu’s should/shouldn’t  eating beef is a personal choice.some parts of india people drink goat milk ..but you don’t call it is a mother goat and people still eat it . I like steak  and roast beef   ..so it’s a personal choice

 

 

[Jobsforeveryone]

20 hours ago, Tellugodu said:

Or it only taken by Muslims and Christians ??  Is there any reason why beef is not preferred by Hindus ?? Is there any particular sect in Hindus consume beef ?? Teliste chepandi vayya.

Hindus in Dalits eat beef even today. It’s their favorite dish. Nothing wrong in that. But remaining caste people in Hindus don’t eat beef. 

[TechAdvice]

20 hours ago, Tellugodu said:

Or it only taken by Muslims and Christians ??  Is there any reason why beef is not preferred by Hindus ?? Is there any particular sect in Hindus consume beef ?? Teliste chepandi vayya.

Nepalis are Hindus eat beef .. most of Indian Hindus don’t 

[DummyVariable]

4 minutes ago, TechAdvice said:

Nepalis are Hindus eat beef .. most of Indian Hindus don’t 

What? 

[Thokkalee]

I think it is all about culture of the region/religion/caste that we inherit from our parents and the society that we live in... food habits change from region to region and from religion to religion... there is no blanket rule... people will follow whatever they are used to based on their upbringing... 

but no one should rub it on the others faces just to upset them

[DummyVariable]

5 minutes ago, TechAdvice said:

Nepalis are Hindus eat beef .. most of Indian Hindus don’t 

Why will there be a controversy for sending beef masala to Nepal if they eat it there?

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/pakistan/Pakistan-sends-food-with-beef-masala-to-Nepal-blames-Indian-media-for-row/articleshow/47111961.cms