Talk:History of vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Starting point

It needs an intro, and the section dealing with the early roots of Vegetarianism needs to be expanded (and handled very carefully) - but much of the later detail reads very well to me. Other thoughts? Gouranga(UK) 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs an intro, and I still suggest my original intro, slightly modified to meet your concern:

"As far as the sources allow us to trace the roots of vegetarianism, it originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy. In both areas it was, according to the earliest evidence, promoted by minority groups as an essential part of their religious philosophies.[1]"

As for your statement in the other discussion: "non-violence as a concept or practice is not restricted to India, or any particular sect - it is far more ancient than history allows us trace", I reply: I did not say that it is restricted to India (nowadays it is certainly a worldwide phenomenon), I just wrote on the historical origin according to the sources and according to the position of modern scholars. I want to point out that as far as Asia is concerned, the concept of ahimsa and vegetarianism first occurred in India and was part and parcel of Jain and Buddhist philosophy and of some currents in the Vedic religion. No scholar doubts that these were, from the very beginnings, Indian religions, and not imported to India from elsewhere. No concept of ahimsa/vegetarianism occurs in any Asian religion of non-Indian origin (if you know any, please comment). Wherever you find it in the history of Asian countries, it is demonstrably a result of Buddhist or Hindu influence, and you can trace it back to an Indian origin. Therefore it is reasonable to assume an Indian origin, as all modern scholars do. The opposite would be original research. I am aware of the fact that according to the Vaishnavas, there was a Golden Age Satya Yuga more than two million years ago, with worldwide ahimsa of course, but that belongs to the religion section, not to the history article. The history article must reflect the position of the historians, and all modern scholars agree on the Indian origin (if you know an exception, please comment). If scholarly references are needed for this point, I can provide dozens of them. 89.49.187.156 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection here, I am going to proceed as suggested above. 89.54.150.88 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have objections, but did not see much room for discussion following your above comments. Would you like to colloborate on improving this article? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. As far as I see, the immediate need for improvement concerns the lacking introduction and the section on India, and the lack of an introduction is the most urgent point. I have made a suggestion for the introduction above, hoping that it meets your concern after your criticism of the old wording (in the vegetarianism article). I think there is definitely room for discussion, and the next step ist for you to explain your objections in detail. 89.49.159.255 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If the introduction suggested above is too short, I suggest the following longer text (as a summary of the article):
As far as the sources allow us to trace the roots of vegetarianism, it originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy. In both areas it was, according to the earliest evidence, closely connected with the idea of nonviolence towards animals, and was promoted by minority groups as an essential part of their religious philosophies. After the Christianization of the Roman Empire in late antiquity it disappeared in Europe as a deliberate concept. Many medieval monks ate little or no meat for ascetic reasons, but they ate fish and were no vegetarians. In Europe vegetarianism only reemerged in the Renaissance. It became a worldwide movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. 89.49.159.255 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally like the introduction you give above, and after making some amendments and playing with the wording have added an intro paragraph to the article based on what was being said. My main concern was that we don't make any statements which are too bold, or go beyond what is know for sure. There may well have been small pockets of people following Vegetariansim many thousands of years into the past - anywhere in the world for example? Please let me know what you think of the intro, and change any parts which you see as innapropriate.
In terms of India, the history often becomes politicised on various sides as Buddhist scholars claim Vegetarianism sprang from Buddhism, Jains sometimes claim the same of Jainism, and adherents of Hinduism commonly claim it was there all along in the Vedic society and simply became more focused within later Hinduism. The Vedas themselves include references to both vegetarian diet & aversion to animal killing and also in other sections, details of sacrifices involving probable animal killing (if not taken metaphorically). Overall it is somewhat of a minefield to come-up with a definite history, so the only approach I could suggest would be to include the range of different opinions, with the weight being given to those based on archeological evidences if possible?
Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gouranga, I understand your concern about dismissing the hypothetical possibility that there were Vegetarian groups thousands of years BCE who did not leave any trace whatsoever, and the wording should be such as not to exclude that. As for the evidence, an instance where vegetarianism before the 6th century BCE may be plausible is the case of the Jains, whose tradition existed long before the times of Mahavira, and that's already stated in the India section. I made some changes in the introduction, for the following reasons:
For the first sentence: What does the term "History of vegetarianism" mean? I think it's not the history of people who happen not to eat meat and fish, or who eat meat extremely rarely, because it is hardly available in their environment or because they are too poor to afford such food. Ever since the time when the term vegetarianism was coined, it has always been used to designate people who made up a concept, according to which they deliberately, voluntarily decide to eschew meat and fish, although they have the option to do otherwise. In Europe there were people in Antiquity and the Middle Ages who ate meat extremely rarely or perhaps not at all because they had no opportunity to hunt or to raise domestic animals or to buy meat. They were too poor to afford it, but they would have enjoyed to eat such luxury food if a generous donor had offered it to them. Can such people be called vegetarians? That may be technically correct, but it hardly makes sense. They themselves would not have described themselves as vegetarians (or whatever was the equivalent of that term at their time). If someone is so poor that he can afford meat only on Christmas and Easter, is he then a vegetarian for the rest of the year? I understand the history of vegetarianism to be the history of a concept. If it were just a habit due to the availability or absence of meat and fish, then there would be no need for a separate article, and it should be part of an article "history of nutrition". This article is about history of civilization and it deals with an idea in the context of cultural history. Therefore, in this historical context, I added "voluntarily" to the definition of vegetarianism; it is not in the current definition in the dictionaries because nowadays everyone has the option to eat meat, but in this historical context it is really necessary.
In the second sentence I changed "popularly accepted diet" because in ancient Europe the vegetarians, though they kept a high profile, were so few that the term "popular" may be misleading.
In the third sentence I removed "primarily" because that would induce the reader to think that there was a minority of vegetarians who had no religious or ethical motivation but whose motivation was just health. That would be misleading, as there is no evidence for the existence of such people in antiquity.
In the next sentence I removed "being replaced by meat based diets", because it's not true: many poor people ate meat rarely, as they couldn't afford it, so the average diet was not meat-based, it just contained meat occasionally.
In the next sentence I removed "but did not promote vegetarianism specifically", because this wording gives the reader the impression that they were vegetarians who just didn't promote vegetarianism. That's not true. They were no vegetarians. They eschewed beef, some of them eschewed fowl, but they ate fish.
Now let's get ahead with the India section. In the original version of that section I had sentences on Hinduism and on Buddhism with references, which you removed as "POV statement" inspite of the academic references. I think it isn't POV, it's just the position of mainstream scholars and by no means a personal POV of mine or original research on my part. In fact my wording was even more cautious than the scholars' one. So first of all we should discuss whether it is POV or not, and I look forward to reading your arguments. I agree it's a minefield as you wrote, because of the POVs of Buddhists, Jains and Hindus, but precisely for that reason Wikipedia should give preference to the findings and arguments of unbiased scholars. 89.49.178.201 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your logic of changing the sentances in the intro. It reads better that way around. I believe that both St. Francis of Assisi and Saint David were vegetarians by choice, so it was not that there were no influential vegetarians in religious circles. But as I understand it, their primary concern was to preach the message of Christ, rather than any dietary specifics. Gouranga(UK) 09:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As for St Francis, there is no evidence for his alleged vegetarianism, but there is some evidence against it (though not conclusive). The facts are these:
1. Both Spencer and Passmore, who have looked into this matter, have arrived at the conclusion that he probably wasn't a vegetarian. Both scholars are beyond any suspicion of an anti-vegetarian POV.
2. The "rule of Saint Francis" "Rule of the Franciscan Order" from the Medieval Sourcebook does not contain any regulations on food (unlike the rule of St Benedict and other medieval rules of monks which restrict or ban certain types of meat). Franciscans were allowed to eat all kinds of meat. From this is can be inferred that Francis didn't care about such matters.
3. Passmore quotes a passage from a reliable 13th century Franciscan source which suggests that Francis was completely indifferent to cruelty against domestic animals (even in an extreme case).
4. The idea that he was vegetarian is probably based on the stories that he talked to animals and called them "Brothers" and "Sisters". But that is no evidence at all, because he also spoke of inanimate objects that way ("Brother Sun", "Brother Fire" etc.), so it was just poetic or metaphoric language.
As for Saint David, his biography was written by Rhygyfarch about five centuries after his death. A meatless diet was not unusual for ascetics, as I wrote in the article (however, it should be kept in mind that for some medieval authors fowl was not really meat). Is there any evidence that he eschewed fowl and fish? If so, that would be (as far as I know) the only case of a medieval Catholic vegetarian, and in that case he should be mentioned in the article. 89.59.29.90 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India

In regards to the India section I have found that amongst historians there is much speculation and theory on it's ancient history - with sometimes several conflicting opinions. I'm wondering if there is anything solid we could work off, rather than a scholars best guess? Archaeological remains containing certain food particles, or particular utensils within ancient sites? Or at least we should make it clear that our vision of that time is not definite? Gouranga(UK) 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology is not helpful. If you find sites with traces of hunting or animal sacrifice or butchery, that cannot prove that there were no vegetarians, and if you find sites without such traces, it is still possible that the people who lived there ate meat at least occasionally and no traces of those activities survived. So we have to rely on the written sources, but the dating of those sources is considerably more difficult and controversial than in European or Chinese history. So what Wikipedia should do is to reflect the present consensus of unbiased mainstream scholars, point out the uncertainties, and mention dissident voices only if they give an unbiased impression and have at least some evidence which can be taken serious. I suppose some of the Indian scholars would not dare to contradict established teachings of their respective religions.
Let's begin with the Buddha. An article on "History of vegetarianism" cannot neglect the crucial question whether he was a vegetarian or not. Many scholars believe that he wasn't, but the evidence is not conclusive. However, the controversy must be mentioned. There is a remarkable paper on this matter here: [1]. The question is also discussed in the first section of the article Buddhist vegetarianism, partly without references, but the references do exist, I found some of them in Alsdorf's paper. So we should give a short account of the viewpoints here and I'll make a suggestion for the wording. I am aware that the Vaishnavas, or at least some of them, believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Krishna and so I suppose it would be a very serious offence for them even to consider the possibility that he may have eaten meat or allowed his followers to do so. 89.59.29.90 11:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Why keep bringing Vaishnavism into the debate? If people believe Buddha to be God then he do could anything He wanted to in their eyes, surely? Not all Buddhists follow a vegetarian diet, so I'm sure it is an interesting area to explore with opinions on both sides? Out of interest, why don't you create an account and log-in? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose creating an account makes sense for people who intend to contribute on a long-term basis - something I may not do in the English Wikipedia as I am not a native speaker and I find it strenuous to write in a foreign language.
If God is omnipotent, he is able to do anything theoretically, but practically, when he appears as an avatara, it is extremely difficult to admit that he may act against his own teachings and his own nature, e.g. not practising vegetarianism or allowing his disciples to eat meat, because then his nature would be unstable. But that's off topic.
I have made a first tentative draft for the beginning of the section on India (introduction and subsection on Buddhists and Jains, see below). Of course the references will be added for each statement. We may discuss this draft first and then turn to the subsection on the Vedic religion.
(Introduction:) In ancient India vegetarianism was practised by the Jains, by a part of the Buddhist community, and by a part of the followers of the historical Vedic religion (the predecessor of Hinduism). Controversial questions are how old and how widespread the practice was.

(Subsection “Early Buddhism and Jainism”): Jain and Buddhist sources show that the principle of nonviolence towards animals was an established rule in both religions as early as the 6th century BCE. The Jain concept, which is particularly strict, may be even much older. Parshva, the earliest Jain leader (Tirthankar) whom modern Western historians consider to be a historical figure, lived in the late 9th and early 8th century BCE. He is said to have preached nonviolence no less radically than it was practised in the Jain community in the times of Mahavira (6th century BCE).

It must be noted, however, that not everyone who refused to participate in any killing or injuring of animals also abstained from the consumption of meat. Hence the question of Buddhist vegetarianism in the earliest stages of that religion’s development is controversial. There are two schools of thought. One says that the Buddha and his followers ate meat offered to them by hosts or alms-givers if they had no reason to suspect that the animal had been slaughtered specifically for their sake. The other one says that the Buddha and his community of monks (sangha) were strict vegetarians and the habit of accepting alms of meat was only tolerated later on, after a decline of discipline.

The first opinion is supported by several passages in the Pali version of the Tripitaka, the opposite one by some Mahayana texts. All those sources were put into writing several centuries after the death of the Buddha. They may reflect the conflicting positions of different wings or currents within the Buddhist community already in its early stage. According to the Vinaya Pitaka, the first schism happened when the Buddha was still alive: a group of monks led by Devadatta left the community because they wanted stricter rules, including an unconditional ban on meat eating.

The Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which narrates the end of the Buddha's life, states that he died after eating sukara-maddava, a term translated by some as pork, by others as mushrooms (or an unknown vegetable).

(then subsection "Historical Vedic religion", not yet finished)

Do you have any objections so far? If you have the primary source evidence for Saint David (see discussion above), please let me know. 89.59.19.221 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is sounding good so far, no objections on my side. In the Oxford Dictionary of Saints (ISBN 0-19-860949-3) it says that Saint David "founded ten monasteries...where the monks lived in extreme hardship, imitating the monks of Egypt in their regime of heavy manual labour and study, sustained by a diet of bread, vegetables, and water", but nothing on Vegetarian diet regarding himself. It should be there in a more detailed biography. In a version of the Little flowers of Saint Francis it does mention him abstaining from eating animal flesh (but not forcing it on his disciples), but I don't have the exact reference to hand. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As for St David, it would have been very strange for him to be less rigid than his subordinates in his asceticism and diet. But the source (his biography by Rhygyfarch) is very late and not reliable in general, so it is probably better not to name him explicitly; he was just one of those ascetic monks already mentioned in the article. But for Saint Francis, I wrote in the article that he was not a vegetarian, on the basis of the arguments presented above. If the opposite is clearly stated in the Little Flowers, then that sentence must be removed or modified. I tried to find it in the Little Flowers, without success so far. Are you sure about it? All I found is evidence that his companions ate meat.
Now I've completed the tentative draft of the last part of "India" (last part of the Buddhism section and sections on Vedic religion and Hinduism):

The Buddhist emperor Ashoka the Great (304 BCE – 232 BCE) was a vegetarian and a determined promoter of nonviolence to animals. He promulgated detailed laws aimed at the protection of many species, abolished animal sacrifice, and admonished the population to avoid all kinds of unnecessary killing and injury.

Theravada Buddhists used to observe the regulation of the Pali canon which allowed them to eat meat unless the animal had been slaughtered specifically for them. In the Mahayana school some scriptures advocated vegetarianism; a particularly uncompromising one was the famous Lankavatara Sutra written in the fourth or fifth century CE.

(section "Historical Vedic religion":) Few source texts have survived from the Vedic period, which lasted from the middle of the second millennium BCE to the middle of the first. According to the opinion prevailing among modern scholars, ritual animal sacrifice with subsequent eating of the meat was a predominant custom, and the principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) was hardly known or not respected. The earliest reference to the idea of nonviolence to animals is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita (31.11) which may have been written in the 9th century BCE or earlier. The Chandogya Upanishad, dated to about the 8th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, bans violence against animals except in the case of ritual sacrifice (8.15.1).

(section "Hinduism") The Manu Smriti composed between ca. 200 BCE and ca. 200 CE, a highly authoritative Hindu lawbook, contains in its fifth chapter many diet rules. In some passages it defends ritual sacrifice of specific animals and eating of their meat. It claims that such killing is not really violence (himsa), but rather a benevolent act, because the slaughtered animal will attain a high rebirth in the cycle of reincarnation. All slaughter except in the context of ritual is strongly condemned, and the text states that the seller and buyer of such meat, as well as the cook and the eater, are all killers on the same grounds as the butcher.

In the following centuries, the principle of universal non-violence to animals was accepted in wide parts of the population. When the famous Chinese Buddhist monk Faxian visited the Magadha region of India in the early 5th century CE, he found that people abstain from taking life. ... They do not breed pigs or poultry or sell any animal food.

Vegetarianism was (and still is) mandatory for the yogis, both for the practitioners of Hatha Yoga and for those of Bhakti Yoga (especially the Gaudiya Vaishnavas).

In the Colonial Era (1757-1947) upper class Indians, especially the Brahmins, were vegetarians, whilst the poor Shudras (members of the lowest caste) were reported to eat almost anything that came in their way.

Of course references will be supplied. Do you see any deficiencies? 89.59.15.104 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


In regards to early forms of Hinduism / Vedic culture, one or two of the following quotations may also be of use:

"You must not use your God-given body for killing god's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." (Yajur Veda 12.32)

"One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head." (Rig Veda 10.87.16)

and with later Hinduism:

"The purchaser of flesh performs himsa [violence] by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it - all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. (Mahabharata, Anu. 115:40)

"Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)[2]

Vegetarianism is common throughout Vaishnavism, not just the Gaudiya branch, as well as in other branches of modern Hinduism so that should be probably be made more obvious. I will take a further look later on today. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For modern India there is already some information in the section "Current situation", which may still be enlarged. I suggest to have all that stuff about the present time there - Gandhi is in the 20th century section so as not to disturb the chronological structure of the article more than necessary. In the article on Vaishnavism they say that 70% of the present Hindu population are Vaishnavas, and in this article it is stated that vegetarians are 20-42% of India's total population (including the meat-eating Muslims). That would mean that a large part of the Vaishnavas eat meat. That's why I mentioned the Gaudiya branch only, as they are 100% vegetarian, arent't they? Mentioning Vaishnavism as a whole would only make sense if it can be stated that their percentage of vegetarians is significantly higher than the percentage in other Hindu groups. I have no statistics on that, and if it's true, then that would mean, given the above figures, that among non-Vaishnava Hindus the majority of meat-eaters must be overwhelming. Is there any evidence for such statements?
I am surprised by the sentence in the Rig Veda because it clearly sounds like ahimsa, but I never came across it in the academic discussions on the earliest evidence for ahimsa. Could it be a late addition to the text? Anyway I have to look into that. 89.59.19.76 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've amended what is said in the Vaishnavism article, as I suspect 70% is too large a percentage. Either that or the website's definition of Vaishnavism was a very general one. The four major Vaishnava schools all follow an orthodox lacto-vegetarian diet in my experience, avoiding even garlic & onions. I feel that statistics regarding such a large population as India can be somewhat problamatic, although they are useful in identifying certain general truths, at least. Regards Gouranga(UK) 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have just looked at the Rigveda quotation and I find it very obscure and confusing. If you understand it literally, it means that all meat eating was considered a capital crime - that sounds unbelievable indeed. I've found three translations which differ considerably from yours 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." It seems that all these translations, including your one above, contain some interpretation on the part of the translators. To describe cannibalism and meat eating and milk theft as similar crimes, all of them punishable by the death penalty, sounds so strange that I cannot see how this verse could be used as evidence. 89.59.19.76 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the Mahabharata, the quotation you gave just says that meat eating is himsa, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's necessarily wrong. Other passages (3.199.11; 13.148.17; 13.116.26; 3.199.12) emphatically defend animal sacrifice and say that eating such meat is "not violence". So it's exactly the same position as the one of the Chandogya Upanishad already mentioned in my draft. I suggest to add it there. But it should not be quoted in full, because this position is definitely not a vegetarian one - you can eat as much meat as you want as long as you slaughter the animals according to the appropriate rite.
The same is true for the Bhagavata Purana. The quotation you give looks like a ban on meat eating. But just one verse above the passage you quoted, you have this text (11.5.13): "It is enjoined that wine should be taken by smelling it and that likewise an animal should be killed as prescribed and not in wanton violence [with wide-scale animal slaughter]". So this again is not vegetarianism. 89.59.19.76 21:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've tried in vain to find your quotation from Yajur Veda. The online translation (external link in Yajur Veda) gives a completely different text for 12.32. 89.59.19.76 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've checked the Mahabharata again. Not only the passage you quoted (13.115.40), but the entire chapter 13.115 is strongly pro-vegetarian; but it is also very clear that meat eating is accepted on condition of a correct slaughter ritual. So quoting just one passage would look one-sided. I suggest the following addition to my above draft, after the sentence "The Chandogya Upanishad, dated to about the 8th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, bans violence against animals except in the case of ritual sacrifice (8.15.1).":
The same view is expressed in the Mahabharata (3.199.11-12; 13.115; 13.148.17) and in the Bhagavata Purana (11.5.13-14). 89.59.19.76 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal sacrifice & Vegetarianism

I think we have to be careful about mixing these two subjects together, or treating them as part of the same issue. For example in the Bhagavata-Purana (11.5.13) it is clearly describing that just because animals can be offered in sacrifice, does not mean that it's okay to kill animals simply for the meat:

According to the Vedic injunctions, when wine is offered in sacrificial ceremonies it is later to be consumed by smelling, and not by drinking. Similarly, the sacrificial offering of animals is permitted, but there is no provision for wide-scale animal slaughter. Religious sex life is also permitted, but only in marriage for begetting children, and not for sensuous exploitation of the body. Unfortunately, however, the less intelligent materialists cannot understand that their duties in life should be performed purely on the spiritual platform.

As contradictory as this may sound to our modern ears, it is quite plausable that in ancient India there existed societies wherein animal sacrifices were permitted on religious grounds, and yet a vegetarian diet was followed. I wouldn't see the existance of animal sacrifice as evidence of vegetarianism not being followed. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal sacrifice as such belongs to the topic of ahimsa and there is a separate article on ahimsa (though unfortunately not the type of article I'd describe as excellent). I agree that this artice, which is about vegetarianism, should not go into too many details of nonviolence or animal rights. If animal sacrifice were a completely different matter not connected with the question of food, there would be no point mentioning it here. But the point is that the meat of those animals was eaten by the sacrificer (and his family and guests), and that's why it is highly relevant here. It was their way of providing meat for consumption, hoping not to incur any karmic consequences. People were interested in getting that meat for consumption, free of karma as they believed, that's why they were keen to sacrifice the animals. Otherwise they could have sacrificed other valuable goods instead, and all those long discussions in the sources whether animal sacrifice and eating of such meat is compatible with ahimsa or not would have been unnecessary. The Manu smriti and other texts are very clear on this point: the meat was eaten. Of course I'll give the references.
I've almost completed the references for the new version of the section on India, it may be finished tomorrow. Any objections to the text? What about the points I listed above? 89.59.9.31 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There is just one point for which I have no good reference at hand, and that's the vegetarianism of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas (I mean as a binding rule for all of them). Everyone just seems to take it for granted. I guess you will find it easy to provide a good reference (for all of them, not just one line of tradition). Walter Eidlitz may be suitable, but I don't have the English version of his Unknown India. 89.59.9.31 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
But regardless of animal sacrifice, where is the evidence (or not) for Vegetarian diet. We cannot assume that just because, in some quarters people sacrificed animals, no-one else in the society followed vegetarian diet. I believe the quotes from the Rig and Yajur Veda and the later quotes from Bhagavata Purana all follow a similar thread (i.e animal sacrifice was being abused in this way, but was not the primary purpose). Especially in reference to the killing of cows, other references can be provided:
O King, for the sake of protecting the cows, brāhmaṇas, demigods, devotees, the Vedic literature, religious principles, and principles to fulfill the purpose of life, the Supreme Personality of Godhead accepts the forms of incarnations. (Bhag-P 8.24.5)
I'll see if I can find a universal quote in regards to Vegetarianism in Vaishnavism. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the sources may give a limited and hence misleading impression, because they mainly describe the life and customs of the upper class. To prevent misinterpretation, I suggest to add, behind the sentence "According to the opinion prevailing among modern scholars, ritual animal sacrifice with subsequent eating of the meat was a predominant custom, and the principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) was hardly known or not respected.", the following: "It must be noted, however, that only members of the priestly caste (Brahmins), i.e. a small part of the population, were entitled to perform such rites, and the sources are silent about the diet of the masses." For the Rig Veda quote, I already summarized my misgivings above. I just could't find the Yajur Veda quote in the edited text - which edition do you use, could you indicate the page? 89.54.149.21 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just completed the new version of the India section and replaced the old text by the new one. The relevant passages of Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana are indicated, and the possibility of a vegetarian population in the Vedic period is left open. I removed the following two sentences of the old version, for the following reasons:
1. "Vegetarianism may have been common in the Indian subcontinent as early as the 2nd millennium BCE[3]." If you look up the reference, you find it's just a non-scholarly website, and what they write is: "The rise of vegetarianism in India goes back to more than 500 BC, when India saw the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. These religions preached the principle of ahimsa or "non-violence. During the ancient Aryan Vedic period meat was consumed after animal sacrifice to the Gods. This slowly changed with the rise of Jainism and Buddhisim." So the POV of the website given as reference is precisely the opposite of "as early as the second millennium BCE"! By the way, as for me, I am inclined to believe that ahimsa is pre-Aryan, but that's speculative, and the sentence had to be removed because of the uselessness of the reference and lack of evidence. As for the Rig Veda quote as a possible reference, see above.
2. "Hinduism preaches that it is the ideal diet for spiritual progress, as the principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) is considered important by a part of the Buddhist community, and Jainism enjoins all its followers to be vegetarian.[9]." This is a general statement about the three religions and it does not specify from a historical and chronological viewpoint, but rather describes the current situation, hence it is not appropriate as an introduction to the section on ancient India in this historical article. 89.54.149.21 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What you have written is very well done - and in my opinion, gives a well-rounded and informed viewpoint. I appreciate your taking some of the above points into account. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not really satisfied with the present formulation of the sentence about the yogis: "Vegetarianism was (and still is) mandatory for the yogis, both for the practitioners of Hatha Yoga and for the majority of practitioners from the Vaishnava schools of Bhakti Yoga (especially the Gaudiya Vaishnavas)." As for the practitioners of Hatha Yoga, the rules of the Gherand Samhita, as indicated in the footnote, are very clear. But for the bhaktas, the wording "the majority of practitioners from the Vaishnava schools of Bhakti yoga" implies the existence of a minority of Vaishnava bhaktas (however strong) who are professed meat eaters and explicitly refuse to accept vegetarianism as a mandatory rule. The wording gives the impression that bhaktas disagree among themselves on this matter just like the Buddhists. This sounds unlikely and would require evidence. I suppose bhaktas will challenge the idea that a bonafide disciple of a school of bhakti yoga can be a meat eater. So I'd prefer to replace the wording "and for the majority of practitioners from the Vaishnava schools of Bhakti Yoga (etc.)" by "and for the disciples of the Vaishnava schools of Bhakti Yoga (etc.)". There may be individuals who break this rule (or other rules), which would be considered an offence by their master, but that does not by any means challenge the truth of the statement that the rule is mandatory.
Besides, the quotation from the Padma Purana in the footnote is just about killing, so it is not conclusive evidence for the statement that meat eating is necessarily considered to be himsa (and as such outlawed) by the Vaishnava bhaktas. Scriptural praise of nonviolence is one thing and its practical implementation in people's diet is another thing. Good evidence would be a report by a scholar who studied the life of the Vaishnava bhaktas living with them, or explicit statements on diet by gurus of the schools, or by a guru whose authority is accepted by all the schools. Do you have this kind of evidence? If not, I'll try to provide it. 89.59.9.100 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that all the references are given, I suppose it is justified to change the "start-class" rating indicated by the tag. 89.49.143.145 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts - I have not yet been able to find a scholastic quotation in regards to Vegetarianism but will take another look tonight. In regards to the article rating I have put in a request for assessment from the Food & Drink project. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a better solution by combining several scriptural passages – through the combination one arrives at a stringent necessity to rule out non-vegetarian food for the devotees. By the way, the same issue is addressed in the article Vegetarianism and religion where I’ll soon replace the present somehow chaotic version of the section on Hinduism by a new one with good references. Perhaps you want to comment on whether that section should become a separate main article or not (see talk page). 89.49.137.254 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)