1

It is generally believed that meat,eggs etc. are needed to build strong bones and muscle. These would be called Rajasic foods. Does scripture allow Kshatriyas to directly eat Rajasic/Tamasic foods? Or do these foods have to be made Saatvic through mantras/rites before they can be eaten?

This question is not focused on meat. It is about non-Sattvic food in general.

S K
  • 1
  • 4
  • 22
  • 79

1 Answers1

2

Or do these foods have to be made Saatvic through mantras/rites before they can be eaten?

According to Mahābhārata, Kṣatriyas can hunt all wild animals and consume their meat directly:

Desirous of benefiting all men, the high-souled Agastya, by the aid of his penances, dedicated, once for all, all wild animals of the deer species to the deities. Hence, there is no longer any necessity of sanctifying those animals for offering them to the deities and the Pitris.

The Critical Edition (Bibek Debroy's translation), provides additional context:

Listen to the ordinances that have been laid down for kshatriyas. If they eat meat that has been obtained through their own valour, they do not incur any sin. All deer and wild animals are said to have been dedicated to all the gods. O king! This was done by Agastya in ancient times and that is the reason hunting is praised. There can be no hunting without being prepared to give up one’s own life. O king! There is thus no difference in form between the one who is killing and the one who is being killed. O descendant of the Bharata lineage! That is the reason all the rajarshis went on hunts. The learned say that this does not lead to their being tainted by any sin.

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
  • To bring relevance of above scripture to current lifestyle, there must also be a definition in the same text, on who exactly is a Kshatriya. Most people today who eat at McDonalds are not, so above cannot be misconstrued as leeway for everyone to binge on meat. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 00:38
  • @mar Only flesh of a hunted animal can be partaken lawfully. McDonalds' cases ain't included anyway. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Apr 01 '21 at 03:04
  • @Mr.Sigma. - semantics. what exactly is hunted ? killing them with a knife is part of hunting. killing a 'free-range' cow with a stun gun is also 'hunting'. any amount of justification can be made to call something as hunting. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 03:06
  • @mar "They do not incur any fault by eating flesh that has been acquired by expenditure of prowess..." — Bhishma. Hunting has commotions of prowess at the expenses of one's life... If I were to obtain flesh by hunting, however unlikely today, I won't accrue any sin. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Apr 01 '21 at 03:15
  • @Mr.Sigma. walking to mcdonalds and buying chicken is an expenditure of my prowess. hence it is hunting. hence no sin. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 04:20
  • @mar That's not hunting, that's buying meat of already butchered animals. Hunting is when you go into the woods and find and seek live animals and kill them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting – Ikshvaku Jul 31 '22 at 13:25
  • @Ikshvaku - yeah, humans hired other humans who went into woods, domesticated cows or bred them, sought out live cows in the shed, and then killed them. paying someone to hunt for you and hunting them yourself are equivalent in the eyes of shastras as far as consequences go, which is the context of the question not the English definition. the hirer actually gets more share of punya and paap just as ejamaan of a yagna, who, despite not doing the yagna himself, gets the fruits. – ram Jul 31 '22 at 19:55
  • @mar What are you arguing? The Mahabharata verse says kshatriyas are allowed to hunt for animals in the forest with their own weapons. – Ikshvaku Jul 31 '22 at 20:05
  • @Ikshvaku - read my first comment in this thread – ram Jul 31 '22 at 20:32
  • @mar Oh yeah, I agree it's definitely not an excuse to eat all kinds of meat. – Ikshvaku Jul 31 '22 at 20:48