Bohanec-The Rise of Vegetarianism in India (2013)

8/10/2019 Bohanec-The Rise of Vegetarianism in India (2013)

1/14

Cogen BohanecHRPH 8455

Fall 2013Final Paper

The Rise of Vegetarianism in India

Certainly one of the most unique contributions that India has made to world

history is its long and enduring tradition of vegetarianism, a practice that is followed to

some degree by all three of Her major religions.1Indeed, in the case of Hinduism, one of

the defining criteria for the religion is vegetarianism2despite the fact that the majority of

Hindus are not vegetarian.

3

Alsdorf goes so far as to consider nonviolence (ahis) and

cow veneration as the two commandments that form the foundation of the Hindu

religion, but in reality the complexity of the religion frustrates any attempts at

monolithic delimitation. This latter principle is so prevalent that even most non-

vegetarians refrain from the consumption of beef, although it is not unheard of for even

Brahmins to eat cow in secret when it is cheaper than goat meat.4

1Albeit in the case of Buddhism vegetarianism was not practiced widely until it was

exported out of the Sub-Continent into East Asia.2Wendy Donniger, The Hindus,Penguin Press, New York, 2009pg. 28 writes,

Objections to the word Hinduism has caused scholars to identify a cluster of

qualities each of which is important but not essential to Hinduismbut each

Hindu will adhere to some combination of them, as a non-Hindu would not.

These might include some combination of belief in the Vedas (which excludes

Buddhism and Jainism), karma (which does not excluded Buddhism and Jainism),

dharma (religion, law, and justice), a cosmology centered on Mount Meru,

devotion (bhakti) to one or more members of an extensive pantheon, the ritual

offerings (pj) of fruit and flowers to deity, vegetarianism as anidealnonviolence, and blood sacrifice (which may or may not be mutually

exclusive).3ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 28, citing Hardiman, The Coming of Devi, 51 only between

about 25 and 40 percent of Indians are actually vegetarian.4Alsdorf, The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India, Routledge,

London, 1961, pp. 1, 3


2/14

However, we must be careful not to obfuscate the distinctions between a variety

of related concepts. Firstly, cattle-taboo and vegetarianism may perhaps be related, but

the former does not imply the latter, as we can see in areas where the ban on cattle killing

is enforced when other animals are allowed to be slaughtered.5Donniger is quick to point

out that nonviolence, pacifism, compassion for animals and vegetarianism are not the

same thing at all6as we see where those who promote ahismay support human

warfare, and those who practice ahismight not be vegetarian. This study will look at

the evolving attitudes shaping the rise of vegetarianism as these attitudes are expressed in

the chronology of Early Indian (mainly Hindu) literature.7

Vedic Sacrifice

We see our earliest hints of cow veneration in the Avestan tradition where cow

urine is thought to be sacred. These references may have occurred before the Aryans

migrated to India, showing that at least some proto-cow veneration existed from the

earliest period. But despite this reverence (or perhaps because of it), cows were used for

sacrificial ritual,8and these early Aryans were certainly eating meat.

9By the late-Vedic

age (500 CE) we see our first inhibitions about eating beef, where cows were only

allowed to be eaten at a sacrifice, although Alsdorf concludes that this has nothing to do

with ahisand the cow-taboo in the modern sense and this rule was likely not always

5ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 1, writes, Millions of Hindus eat meat but no beef. The ban on cattlekilling prevails where other animals are killed for religious festivals, especially in Nepal,

such as goats and buffalo for the goddess Kl.6ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 192

7See Appendix I

650-800 CE: Early Tantras are composed8ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 69

9ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 2 Aryans of middle second millennium BCE were meat eaters.


3/14

followed, especially in times of famine.10

We also have some reason to believe that there

was a restriction on killing cows by the time of thegandAtharvaVedas, which use the

term aghnyanot-killed as a designation for cows. But Alsdorf is skeptical of taking this

as conclusive, because this designation may simply mean that one cannot kill a cow, that

is to say, as a sacrificial offering the sacrificial cows go to heaven and are therefore not

killed at all.11However, we might speculate that as cows began to play an increasingly

important role in ritual and mythology, they became increasingly sanctified, and this

blended with the emerging importance of ahismay have led to the taboo against cow-

killing (bovinicide?).

Ahisand the Diminishing Prestige of the Sacrifice

We cannot be sure when the idea of ahisfirst became popular, but it certainly

was not a major concern in the Vedas. Alsdorf loosely attributes many of the non-Vedic

elements of Hinduism to pre-Aryan (or Indus Valley Civilization)12

but I think this is a

sloppy assertion. The early usage of ahishad nothing to do with vegetarianism at all,

but rather was a taboo against killing any living beings at all, including plants, but after

the Vedic period, it increasingly implied restrictions on meat consumption.13

Ahis

likely did not originate from Jainism or Buddhism, but the concept probably predated

these movements and went on to inspire them and the Brahminical faith as well as these

two.14

As it was increasingly believed that nonviolence was a necessary prerequisite to

10ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 6611

ibid. Alsdorf, pg.69-7312

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 5713Bolle, The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India, by LudwigAlsdorf, 1961,Introductionpg. viii14

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 52


4/14

escaping the cycle of sasra, and only if one becomes a renunciate and adhered to

much stricter code of ahisthat what was practiced by the householders and laity,15the

concept eventually became a rule for all of society, 16and led to an increased acceptance

of vegetarianism.17

Whatever the origin of ahis, we can see an increasing concern about undoing

or downplaying the violence done to the animals during the sacrifice. There is a

replacement of the decapitation of the sacrificial victim with strangulation, perhaps

reflecting a perceived need to make the sacrifice seem less violent.18

Initially sacrificial

violence was successfully defended, but as this defense weakened, attempts were made to

reinterpret it so that the victims were sent to heaven and were not actually victims at all.

But people became less confidant that the slaughtered and dismembered animal could be

reconstructed in the heavenly world, and fear that the sacrificial victim would enact

retribution in the next world persisted,19

as the rise of the ahisdoctrine become

inversely proportional to confidence with the ability of the sacrifice to protect one from

repercussions in the next life.20

Eventually the persistent criticism of violence coupled

with a fear of karmic retribution led to a diminishing proliferation of the sacrifice, that

was increasable perceived as being violent (his), and, according to Alsdorf, its explicit

(albeit perhaps not complete) rejection.21However, Donniger is quick to point out that

15ibid. Bolle, pg. x

16ibid. Bolle, pg. x17

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 1 Although ahiswas not based on vegetarianism, Alsdorf believesthat vegetarianism is unequivocally based on ahis.18

ibid. Bolle, pg. xi19

Gail Hinich Sutherland,Nonviolence Consumption and Community Among Ancient

Indian Ascetics, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Rashtrapati Nivas, 1997 pp.46-4720

ibid. Sutherland, pg.8-921



5/14

the sacrifice never disappeared, and instead continued alongside the growing concern for

ahis, similar to how the path of renunciation simply provided an alternative to

sacrificial religion without replacing it. The lower castes probably never even perceived

any conflict between ahisand animal sacrifice, and as Donniger puts it, they simply

ignored both.22

However, growing concerns of sacrificial hisjuxtaposed to the ahisof the

renunciate sage, in conjunction with the increasing disenfranchisement of the lower

classes from the elitist sacrificial religion, cause a complete transformation in the

religions environment in the middle of the fist millennium BCE. The Brahmanical

establishment responded to the criticism by incorporating the ethos of ahisinto its

own doctrinal onslaught. They redefined the concept of the sacrifice to include other

religious activity such as charity and penance, began to overhaul the entire religious

system with an incredible output of texts,23and made the sacrifice less elitist by the

invent of a domestic application of the sacrifice (i.e.pj).

Increasingly householders were criticized for the necessary violence of daily life

in the form of killing both plants and animals for sustenance (the killing caused by the

tilling of soil in particular), and this rhetoric served to bind mendicants and the laity in a

sort of karmic bond in which the householders were required to kill and serve food, and

the mendicants were needed by these householders as fields of merit from whom the

karmic consequences of killing might be absolved.24This type of discourse about the

inherent violence of householder life also led to increasing restrictions on meat

22ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 197

23ibid. Sutherland, pg. 59-6024

That is to say, householders produced negative karma by producing food, but this

would be absolved by the act of giving to ascetics.


6/14

consumption and vegetarianism25

and was particularly vitriolic against food producers, a

theme that was possible because mendicants rarely received alms from the dra

producers.26

Mendicants also saw the practice of ahisas being particularly important

while dwelling in the forest because it ensured that they would not be harmed by the

animals dwelling there.27

The relationship between mendicants and householders became

one which we might describe as exploitative in which the former benefited from the

karmic transgression of the latter, a situation that has modern parallels when a Hindu

might venerate the cow, and then sell her to a Muslim butcher,28 or how Sherpas of

Nepal prohibit the killing of animals, but eat meat that they receive from butchers in

Tibet.29As such, ahiscannot be considered as a code designed to protect animals from

violence (at least when it is divorced from the practice of vegetarianism), rather it was

largely a means of protecting the mendicant from the moral contamination of being

personally responsible for killing, a contamination that was gladly passed off onto the

laity.30

Of the ascetic religious movements that developed in the first millennium BCE,

eventually all (Buddhist, Jain, jvika, Brahmanical renunciates, etc.) vowed to not be

directly involved in the killing of animals. But the Buddhist were perhaps the most lax,

25ibid. Sutherland, pg.6026

ibid. Sutherland, pg.5627ibid. Sutherland, pg.828


ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 430ibid. Sutherland, pg.57, this mostly refers to how the Buddhists practice ahis. Butwe must also note that according to the animistic-like beliefs of Jainism, all foodpreparation involved killing, so they too were willing to pass the impurity associated with

killing off onto the laity so that they could benefit from escaping the negative karma

associated with killing and transcend sasra.


7/14

allowing for the limited consumption of meat.31

There can be no argument that the Jainas

took ahisto the furthest degree by perceiving the concept in terms of karmic purity

that was inherent in food and the ability of food to pollute based on the hisicvalue of

the food substance.32

Their application of ahiscan be thought of as a protest against

the harming of other living beings.33

It seems that not even the Jainas or any of these other sects extended the concept

of ahisto have any broad social or political applications. The concept seems to remain

almost exclusively oriented around other beings, karma, and diet (at least until the time of

Mohandas K. Gandhi). Jaina generals were not condemned for their brutality, but were

instead seen as a valuable resource to the Jain community.34

Even Emperor Aoka who

implemented animal welfare reforms based on ahiswas certainly no pacifist, although

he, like other rulers (such as the Mauryans, Chadragupta, Bindusra, etc.) did use the

idea of ahisto advocate for civility amongst the polity.35Throughout Indian history

ahishas not served to limit political power and violence, but rather it became the

ideology of these religious movements that largely collaborated with institutions of social

power, governance and even injustice.36

37

38

Often criticism of the Vedic sacrifice

31Vinaya Mahvagga(VI.31.14). The Buddha states:Let no one, O Bhikkhus, knowingly eat meat killed for that purposeI prescribe,

O Bhikkhus, that fish is pure to you in three cases: if you do nto see (it killed), if

you have not heard (it being killed), if you do not suspect (that it has been caught

specially to be given to you).32

ibid. Sutherland, pg.933



ibid. Sutherland, pg.44, 6036ibid. Sutherland, pg.38-3937Vinaya Mahvagga, I.22.18 tells of the close relationship between the Buddha KingBimbisra of Magadha, who donated land to the Sagha. The King says:


8/14

contained critiques of the caste system and the Brhmans who dominated religious

affairs.39

By criticizing the Vedic sacrifice, the concept of ahiswas socially

transformative in that it broke the Katriya and Brhman stranglehold on political power

that used the sacrifice as a tool of legitimation, and led to the increasing power of the

Vaiya caste who in turn became rulers and patrons to the rising movement of

asceticism.40

Literature:

After the Vedas, we can see an early use of the term ahisin theBrhmaas

where it is used to refer to safety or security, but also reflecting an early discomfort about

harming animals, a discomfort that we have already noted in the earliestgVeda

literature reflected in the notion that the sacrificial victim doesnt die, but is rather reborn

into heaven. At the time of theBrhmaas, people were eating meat, but it was becoming

increasingly restricted to special occasions such as honoring guests, and sacrifice (in

which the Gods are the guests). As early as the atapathabrhmaa, there is an

injunction and a warning against eating cows or bulls,41

and during this period abstaining

I give up this Veluvana pleasure garden, Lord, to the fraternity of Bhikkhus with

the Buddha at hits head. The Blessed One accepted the rma (park).38Vinaya Mahvagga, I.40.4. The Sagha is at odds with King (Bimbisra) because theyhad accepted several defecting soldiers into the monastic order. In an effort to maintain

close relationships with the King, the Buddha declares:

Let no on, O Bhikkhus, who is in the royal service, receive the pabbaggordination.

39ibid. Sutherland, pg.47

40ibid. Sutherland, pg.45, the author notes that the Mauryan Empire may have been of

Vaiya origin.41

atapathabrhmaa3.1.2.21:He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of

either the cow or the ox; fro the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here

on earth. The gods spake, Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here:


9/14


10/14

the foundation for the criticism against the sacrifice, the increased valuation of ahis,

and the eventual restrictions against meat consumption.

The straicliterature is ambivalent about vegetarianism much the same way it is

about pretty much any other subject. In the Kma-Stra meat eating is normative,45

although Vtsyyana mentions the benefit of abstention.46Manu seems pretty much all

over the place. He cites a fairly extensive list of animals that you can eat,47

then he

prescribes a punishment for not eating meat at the correct time,48

next he recommends

making an animal out of non-meat substances to avoid killing,49and finally he cautions

against eating any meat at all 50just before he declares that there is no fault in eating

creature except on special occasions (anyatratirtheshu). The text refers to exceptions to

this rule when killing is permitted to feed a worthy person, or places speciallyordained, or except at sacrifices.45

Kma-Stra2.10.7-8, Vtsyyana speaks casually of eating meat after making love:Then according to the season, he offers her a light meal of sweet meats and other

preparations, which both share heartilyThen, conversing sweetly and gently,

they take a pleasant meal, a clear soup tasting of mulberries, appetizing grilled

meats, drinks of ripe fruit juice, dried meat, lemons, and tamarind fruits,according to the customs of the country.

46Kma-Stra1.2.7:

Since their nature is material and visible, actions such as abstaining form meat,

because forbidden by the texts, are a matter of morality or dharma.47

Manu-Smti5.5-25, cows are conspicuously absent from the list48

Manu-Smti5.35:If a man refuses to eat meat after he has been ritually commissioned according to

rule, after death he will become an animal for twenty-one lifetimes.49

Manu-Smti5.37-38:If he gets the urge, let him make an animal out of butter of flour; but he must

never entertain the desire to kill an animal for futile reason. When a man kills an

animal for a futile reason, after death he will be subject in birth after birth to

being slain as many times as the number of hairs on that animal.50Manu-Smti 5.48-49:

One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living beings, and killing

living beings is an impediment to heaven; he should, therefore, abstain form meat.

Reflecting on how meat is obtained and how embodied creatures are tied up and

killed, he should quit eating any kind of meat.


11/14

meat but like Vtsyyana he mentions that abstention brings merit. 51He is equally

ambiguous about the role of the sacrifice, which he defines as being ahis,52but also

transforms earlier Vedic sacrifices to an household application that is designed to avoid

the negative karma of killing inherent in the householder life.53

We can take Manus

ambiguity as following a general astraic pattern of synthesizing the traditions of the

period into one (not-so) cohesive set of prescriptions.54

This type of ambivalence is also represented in the Epic literature as well. There

are several stories about the curses incurred by hunters who mistake people for animals

(Pu, Daaratha),55which might be taken as cautionary tales against killing animals

because you never know whom you are killing. The horse sacrifice is esteemed and is

used by both Yudhihira and Rma as a means to expiate the sins of war56but then its

51Manu-Smti 5.56:There is no fault in eating meat, in drinking liquor, or having sex; that is the

natural activity of creatures. Abstaining form such activity, however, brings great

rewards.52

Manu-Smti 5.39-44:The Self-existent One himself created domestic animals for sacrifice, and the

sacrifice is the prosperity of this whole world. Within the sacrifice, therefore,

killing is not killing. When plants, domestic animals, trees, beasts, and birds die

for the sake of a sacrifice, they will in turn earn superior births. The honey-

mixture, a sacrifice, an offering to gods or ancestorsat no other occasion than

these, Manu has declared, many animals be killed. When a twice-born man who

knows the true meaning of the Veda kills animals for these purposes, he leads

himself and those animals to the highest state. Whether he lives at home, at his

teachers, or in the wilderness, a twice-born man who is self-possessed must

never, even in a time of adversity, carry out a killing that is not sanctioned by the

Veda. When a killing is sanctioned by the Veda and well-established in this

mobile and immobile creation, it should be regarded definitely as non-killing; for

it is from the Veda that the Lay has shined forth.53

Manu-Smti 3.70-7454ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 318-31955

ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg.239-24056

ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 274


12/14

merit is devalued.57

In the story of Gokapilya, the sacrifice is defended for not being an

act of violence and being higher than ahis, an apparent response to the criticisms of

the time,58an argument that occurs more than once in the text.59But the argument in

57ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 274 cites theMahbhratastory after Yudhihiras horse

sacrifice when a mongoose comes out of his hole and declared in a human voice, This

whole sacrifice is not equal to one of the grains of barley that were given by a Brahminwho lived by observing the vow of gleaning. Then he tells a story about how he gave a

few remaining grains of barley to a guest who turned bout to be Dharma in disguiseallowing him and his family to go to heaven. The storyteller concluded, Indeed, non-

hostility (adroha) to all creatures, contentment, clean conduct, tapas, self-restraint,truthfulness, and generosity are all regarded as equal. Janamejaya, who was listening to

this story, replied, Kings are addicted to sacrifice, and sages are addicted to inner heat.The Brahmins busy themselves with pacification, tranquilization and restraint. He goes

on to conclude that since Indra had become ruler of heaven through sacrifice, surely

Yudhihira who resembled Indra in wealth and power, was right to perform the horsesacrifice, and the mongoose was wrong to criticize him. But then the storyteller tells himthe story of Indras animal sacrifice debate in which Indra began a great sacrifice

involving the slaughter of many animals. Thepauswere seized for slaughter, but thesages saw how wretched they were and were overcome by pity (kpa) and objected thatdomestic animals (paus) were not created for sacrifice, and that such sacrifice wasdestructive of dharma because violence (his) cannot be called dharma. They insist thathe sacrifice instead with seeds of grain that have been kept for three years. But Indra

did not agree, and took the matter to king Vasu, who said, You can sacrifice withwhatever is at hand. But the storyteller says that because he spoke this untruth, he

immediately went to hell, because a sacrifice performed with materials wronglyobtained, or with an evil mind, does not yield the fruits of dharma, and that people go

to heaven by giving away what they have gleaned, and also by compassion to allcreatures, and chastity, and sympathy. Indra proceeds with the sacrifice, but we are told

this is not from wisdom, but from his pride and delusion, and King Vasu is punished.(14.92-14.94.1-34)58

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 37, cites this story in which i Kapila sees a cow that is tethered tobe slaughtered for a guest. He begins to doubt the Veda and to dispel these doubts iSymarami begins a debate extolling the sacrifice as being higher than ahis, equatingit to a daily nourishment to all animals and plants and to the entire world, which itselfwas created for sacrifice, and that in actuality those who have the proper mind set that is

one who does not desire reward actually injures nothing, kills nothing and does not hurt

any one. It also states that there is no sin in hiswith the sacrifice because all beingsdesire heaven, and only the sacrificial victim gets to go there.59

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 37-39. The author cites (XIV 28, Deussen 1922: 927ff.) the story of

an ascetic (Yati) who argues with a sacrificing priest (adhvaryu) accusing him of hisinthe sacrifice of a ram. The priest retorts that the ram is not hurt but instead goes to


13/14

favor of ahisseems to win more often in the text, signifying a shift in cultural values

away from the sacrifice.60

There are several sections dealing with vegetarianism as well

repeating the same spectrum of formulations that we see in Manu, a text that dates from

approximately the same time.61

We have the story of a hunter who successfully defends

his occupation based on dharmicprinciples,62

and the extremely long exhortation of

ahisand the denouncing of all meat eating by Bhma.63There are several other

examples of all sides of the debate representing the same arguments that we have already

explored above.

heaven, and Yatiresponds that the priest should ask the family of the ram for permission,

advocating ahisat length. The priest responds arguing that every time the ascetic eatshe commits his, and actually there is not activity (no life) without his. Yaticounters in a way that Alsdorf considers simply not intelligible and the priest continues

with the sacrifice while he remains silenced in what Alsdorf considers to be a victory ofthe champion of the bloody sacrifices. But he considers his victory to be an exception,

where in most cases in the text ahiswins.60

ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 39, cites the story of Yaja-nindthat concludes,Ahissakalo dharmo, hisyaje samhitAhimsa is total piety, and violence with reference to the sacrifice is notpermissible.

61ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 31

62ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 33, citing the Vanaparvan(III 199) in which a pious hunter (dharma-

vydha) makes a 38 stanzas-long defense for animal killing and meat-eating. Heacknowledges that his profession is horrible (ghora), but argues that it is karma-ordained

fated. The animals killed acquire merit because they feed others, and it is his duty to carryout his karmically ordained profession, and negative repercussions of his profession will

be mitigated by virtuous conduct. He makes an appeal to the natural order like Manu (528-30), and argues that plants too are killed. He argues in favor of the sacrifice,

mentioning the same arguments about the animal going to heaven, and therefore meat

eating is justified in these circumstances. He goes on at length to argue that a consistentahimsa is impossible due to the killing of even plant agriculture, and how we areconstantly killing involuntarily. In this case meat-eating wins because no follows.63ibid. Alsdorf, pg. 34, citing the 157 stanzas in the Anusanaparvan (XIII 113-116;cr.ed. 114-117). Yudhihira asks about the contradiction between ahisand theconsumption of meat in the sacrifice and Bhma responds with a long dissertation aboutthe necessity of abstaining from eating meat.


14/14

Conclusion:

It is difficult to determine specifics, but it is clear that based on the discourse that

we see in the literature, large populations of Indians gradually gave up eating meat as the

popularity of the sacrifice diminished inversely with the increased value of ahis. This

trend follows caste lines, with the majority of Brhmaas eventually giving up meat,

while the majority of the other castes still consuming flesh. For the most part, this

spectrum of attitudes concerning sacrifice, ahis, vegetarianism and cow veneration has

survived into modernity, as has the dietary practices associated with caste.

Appendix I: Chronology

1700-1500 BCE: Rig Veda composed by nomads in the Punjab.1200-900 BCE: the Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas are composed (ibid. Donniger,

Hindus,pg. 103)950 BCE: The Mahabharata battle is said to have taken place

800-600 BCE: The Brahmanas are composed (ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 135)600-500 BCE: Aranyakas are composed

500-400 BCE: Early Upanishads are composed (Brihadaranyaka [BU], Chandogya [CU],Kaushitaki [KauU])

468 BCE: Vardhamana Mahavira dies

483 or 410 BCE: Siddhartha Gautama dies400 BCE-1200 CE: Later Upanishads are composed (Katha [KU], Kaushitaki [KauU],Shvetashvatara [SU], and Mundaka {MU]). (Ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 165)

300-100 BCE: The dharma-sutras are composed300-BCE-300 CE: the Mahabharata is composed

200 BCE-200 CE: The Ramayana is composed. (ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg. 212)100 CE: Manu composes his Dharma-Shastra

300 CE: Vatsyayana Mallanga composes the Kama-sutra (ibid. Donniger,Hindus,pg.199)

Bohanec-The Rise of Vegetarianism in India (2013)

Documents

Transcript of Bohanec-The Rise of Vegetarianism in India (2013)