You must not kill any living being for the sake of your food

The killing is the greatest sin

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?

 

Are plants NOT a "living being"?

- - - Updated - - -

Are plants NOT a "living being"?

 

It is surely snowing in hell, because I came into this thread to post almost that exact same question.

 

There is a difference between plants and animals:

Animals possess a nervous system, they can feel pain, fear, agony, etc.
Plants do not possess a nervous system and they do not feel pain, fear, agony, etc.

Given the ability for man to live without causing animal suffering, there is little reason to consume meat.

 

You did not say 'animals' you said 'living being'. What is a living being?

 

Read the second sentence and you might actually understand something for once:

"God has given enough vegetable food that contains all the ingredients present in the non-vegetarian food."

 

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 or one lakh rupees 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).

 

not entirely true. if I pick a carrot and eat it, the plant will die

 

What about the bacteria in yogurt?

 

like vegetables, not sentient beings

 

Well, this is truly amazing. This Indian talk shows more knowledge about what 'life' is than the scientists of this modern world, who cannot agree on the meaning of 'life'.


Anyway, we were talking about 'living being'. Seemingly you did not take the time to even consider the entirety of meaning of 'being', else you are trying to outsmart the scientists by telling them what 'life' is.
"liv·ing (lvng)
adj.
1. Possessing life: famous living painters; transplanted living tissue.
2. In active function or use: a living language.
3. Of persons who are alive: events within living memory.
4. Relating to the routine conduct or maintenance of life: improved living conditions in the city.
5. Full of life, interest, or vitality: made history a living subject.
6. True to life; realistic: "

I placed the definitions above in reference to your argument regarding the plants and your question about 'is plucking the fruit' the same as killing. No. But he digestion of the fruit kills that portion of the plant which was alive prior to the digestive process. A cutting from a plant or even a fruit from a plant can produce new plants.. so that cutting or even the fruit still contains life after cutting or plucking. Just don't digest it or cook it and it can stay alive.

 

The category is "living beings". Sentience not required.

 

I know. and btw when you eat the yoghurt do you kill the bacteria??

 

Uh, no. They're not. You might want to get out a dictionary.

You too.

 

Well, it appears sending you to the dictionary did not help. How about you look up the word "being?" Do you really think a carrot is a living being?

 

There is no definition of "being" that includes non-human animals while excluding plants. You may want to get a dictionary out, yourself.

 

So God is an evil dick who punishes innocent people for the sins of others?

All the more reason to oppose it even if it existed.

 

Actually killing is nota sin. Murder is. Killing in battle, executing criminals, and other forms of killing are not considered sins.

More than that, we are omnivores. We were designed to eat both meat and vegetation. A human hunting for food is no more wrong that a bear gathering salmon from a river in addition to gathering berries. But to hunt for any reason but food IS wrong. As it hunting more than you need to survive.

 

its a sin in some religions

 

No main stream religion.

 

But you just stated above that God does exist. "is" = "be" = "exist" Thanks for the admission of Gods existence.

 

Sauron is the main antagonist from the Lord of the Rings.

 

I cannot argue that with you. I heard that he was a REAL mean dude.

 

who are you to define mainstream?

 

Again, people can speak hypothetically without having to put "hypothetically" in their statement.

Not everything is literal.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.