why did brahmins become vegetarians

I definitely felt better, lighter, and my digestive system seemed to agree with it. These animals are given antibiotics to prevent disease caused by their living conditions and to promote weight gain. They did not stop to make a difference between a living cow and a dead cow. You have reached your limit for free articles this month. A rock, a tree, an animal, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word anything can be sacred. That this was a revolution is beyond question. Two such objections to the thesis appear obvious. Brahmins are vegetarians. It continued to be the religion of the masses for hundreds of years. The reason for the relaxation of rules among the indigenous brahmins was Kulinism, introduced by King Ballal Sena (1160–1179). This application of the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from killing the cow for purposes of food. They, in their turn, built temples and installed in them images of Shiva, Vishnu and Ram and Krishna etc – all with the object of drawing away the crowd that was attracted by the image worship of Buddha. A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes. It has helped us keep apace with events and happenings. The first element in religion presupposes a classification of all things, real and ideal, which are the subject-matter of man's thought, into two distinct classes which are generally designated by two distinct terms the sacred and the profane, popularly spoken of as secular. It could have remained a social difference. …The giving up of the yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice of the cow could have had only a limited effect. Human body has a tendency towards adjusting to the situation, nothing happens. Why did the Brahmins give up beef-eating? Available data from other leading scientific and technical institutions such as IITs also show the absence of Dalits and OBC scientists. What do the scriptures, Vedas etc say about Bramins? For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day. The question however is: Has beef-eating any relation to the origin of Untouchability? They must have been in existence from the ancient past. To begin with the definition of religion. For as has been shown in the previous chapters there was a time when the Brahmins were the greatest beef-eaters. The only questions that arise are: Whether what is true of the present is true of the ancient past? Ambedkar’s 1948 work The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? It should have extended to all other animals. The second question is relevant, if not crucial. When Did Broken Men Become Untouchables? But initially it is the result of the natural law of imitation. This, of course, raises another question: Why did the Brahmins give up beef-eating? For the Buddhist Bhikshus were not vegetarians. The Brahmins in all probability had come to be hated as the killer of cows in the same way as the guest had come to be hated as Goghna, the killer of the cow by the householder, because whenever he came a cow had to be killed in his honour. So, did Brahmins of yore in India eat beef? Not only did the Brahmins decide to become vegetarians, they also declared the cow sacred. Everybody could see it. In this connection it must be remembered that there was one aspect in which Brahmanism suffered in public esteem as compared to Buddhism. The clause “as well as others who eat cow’s flesh” is very important. This excerpt is from the chapter that deals with the conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism and how it led to the Brahmins first giving up eating beef, and then turning vegetarian. All that is necessary to reach the answer I have proposed is to read the analysis of the working of the laws of the sacred with the cow as the sacred object. No Hindu community, however low, will touch cow’s flesh. So why hasn’t it been implemented yet? The entry … As to why they did not imitate the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins the answer is two fold. Theravada Buddhist tradition interprets the last meal of Buddha offered by Cundato be pork, to which they attach no stigma or see n… As has been said, the Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal. This means that no Hindu can eat the flesh of his own animal when it dies. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals took place was collosal. There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as to whether beef-eating was or was not the principal reason for the rise of Untouchability. Without the realization of this fact, it is impossible to explain some of the features of Hinduism. Of course there was an extensive propaganda in favour of cow-worship by the Brahmins. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was regarded as sacred. Why then did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and become vegetarians? It could not have given the Brahmins the means of achieving supremacy over the Buddhists which was their ambition. 12: Why did non-Brahmins give up beef-eating? Excerpted from Chapters 9 to 14 (Part IV and V) of B.R. There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. The above summary should be enough for an understanding of the scope and function of religion. To turn to the second objection. For generations the Brahmins had been eating beef. What can that be? It divided society as nothing else did before. One reason people decide to become vegetarian is they learn how animals raised for food are treated in life and death. As opposed to the popular views propagated by non-practicing Western and Indian sociologists and Indologists, the notion of Brahmin vegetarianism is not directly due to the influence of Buddhism or Jainism. The other is that religion is a collective thing inseparable from society. We also reiterate here the promise that our team of reporters, copy editors, fact-checkers, designers, and photographers will deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda. This happened because the Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal. Brahmins = vegetarian is something people always assume. That is why he prohibited slaughtering animal for sacrifice which he regarded as unnecessary and of animals which are not utilised nor eaten which again would be want on and unnecessary. In Rig Veda (X. What about tam-brams? The only way to beat the Buddhists was to go a step further and be vegetarians. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one’s doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one’s life is in danger. One of these laws is that the lower classes always imitate the higher classes. But the way they are maligning the greatest emperor in the history of the world, Ashoka, it must be something that he might have done to irritate Brahmins so much. A look is a means of contact. It had no particular affection for the cow. As has been said the first circumstance could not be sufficient to account for stigma of Untouchability attaching itself to the Broken Men. If they had been stopped from eating beef there would have been no Untouchability. This statement might surprise many people owing to the popular belief that the connection between Ahimsa and Buddhism was immediate and essential. We may therefore conclude that the Broken Men were exposed to scorn and contempt on the ground that they were Buddhists, and the main cause of their Untouchability was beef-eating. This means that the practice of the Broken Men eating dead meat and the Settled Tribes eating fresh meat must have grown in the ancient past. But this regard and venerations of the cow are only to be expected from an agricultural community like the Indo-Aryans. This disposes of the first objection. This made beef-eating a sacrilege. If the Brahmins gave up beef-eating and the non-Brahmins imitated them why did the Broken Men not do the same? They aren’t simply moral high-grounders. 6 years ago. PART IV. Why then did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and become vegetarians? But there is nothing surprising in it. Ambedkar asks in this excerpt from ‘Beef, Brahmins and Broken Men: An Annotated Critical Selection from The Untouchables’ If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up killing animals for sacrifice… That they did go in for vegetarianism makes it obvious that their motive was far-reaching. Two explanations are offered. Gabriel Tarde speaks of the laws of imitation. B.R. It attacked Brahmanism on all sides as no religion had done before. [...]The Census Returns [of 1910] show that the meat of the dead cow forms the chief item of food consumed by communities which are generally classified as untouchable communities. Brahmins, who had overcome the challenge of Buddhism, increasingly became vegetarian, along with the Banias (who were strongly influenced by the Jains). At the most it would have put the Brahmins on the same footing as the Buddhists. If it was only a crime it would have involved nothing more than punishment. There is one universal feature which characterises all religions. Buddhism had made so deep an impression on the minds of the masses and had taken such a hold of them that it was absolutely impossible for the Brahmins to fight the Buddhists except by accepting their ways and means and practising the Buddhist creed in its extreme form. One is the general atmosphere of scorn and contempt spread by the Brahmins against those who were Buddhists and the second is the habit of beef-eating kept on by the Broken Men. The answer is that the Brahmins had to suspend or abrogate a requirement of their Vedic religion in order to overcome the supremacy of the Buddhist Bhikshus. Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? The clue to the worship of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism. Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly. The revolution has taken place in spite of Manu and contrary to his directions. Unfortunately beef-eating, instead of being treated as a purely secular matter, was made a matter of religion. PART VI UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE DATE OF ITS BIRTH. 5.27. Why then did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and become vegetarians? The same would have been the case if they had followed the rules observed by the Buddhist Bhikshus in the matter of meat-eating. The giving up of the Yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice of the cow could have had only a limited effect. The Touchables whether they are vegetarians or flesh-eaters are united in their objection to eat cow’s flesh. (Brahmin is a person who leads this Sathvik life and not by birth. From the point of view of untouchability the first dividing line is of no importance. Again, how is it that this doctrine which is propounded in the Upanishads did not have any effect on the Brahmins up to the time of the Manusmriti, a period of at least 400 years. Or is it merely an incident in the economic life of the Untouchables? As the Buddhist Bhikshus did eat meat the Brahmins had no reason to give it up. It is the strategy which all rightists use to overcome the leftists. The difference was a glaring difference. If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up killing animals for sacrifice. Beef-eating was not merely a crime. Asoka was interested in the sanctity of all life human as well as animal. They are injunctions. They were smarting under the defeat they had suffered at the hands of Buddhism and were making all possible efforts to regain their power and prestige. They wanted to oust the Buddhists from the place of honour and respect which they had acquired in the minds of the masses by their opposition to the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes. But eating the dead cow was not. Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from the very start? The curious may want to know what has led men to see in this world this dichotomy between the sacred and the profane. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know them. The clue to the worship of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism. For the Buddhist Bhikshus were not vegetarians. That is why a Brahmin should take veg food. The fact is that the Buddhist Bhikshus were permitted to eat three kinds of flesh that were deemed pure…. The giving up of the yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice of the cow could have had only a limited effect. Neither the law nor the doctrine of Himsa could interdict what they were doing, for what they were doing was neither contrary to law nor to the doctrine. Was philosophy responsible for it? As we fight disinformation and misinformation, and keep apace with the happenings, we need to commit greater resources to news gathering operations. It was because they did not want to put themselves merely on the same footing in the eyes of the public as the Buddhist Bhikshus. The sacred is "untouchable" in the sense that it is beyond the pale of debate. [...] The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed. Why Did Non-Brahmins Give Up Beef-Eating? For understanding the function of religion the following points regarding things sacred should be noted: The first thing to note is that things sacred are not merely higher than or superior in dignity and status to those that are profane. They are just different. If the analysis is correct then it is obvious that the worship of the cow is the result of the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. It is generally believed that the Buddhist Bhikshus eschewed animal food. The word (i.e., the breath which forms part of man and which spreads outside him) is another means of contact. This imitation is so regular in its flow that its working is as mechanical as the working of a natural law. Since untouchability stuck to Broken Men only, it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has played its part in fastening untouchability upon the Broken Men. Can this fact which is true of the Maharashtra be taken as typical of the arrangement between the Settled Tribes and the Broken Men throughout India? All one can do is to mention a few salient points. There is a complete dichotomy between the two. The only way to beat the Buddhists was to go a step further and be vegetarians. Contact may be established in a variety of ways other than touch. There are many cases where different sections of the community differ in their foods. The Hindu has always stood for journalism that is in the public interest. An exceptionally intimate contact is the one resulting from the absorption of food. In this connection reference may be made to the tradition current among the Mahars according to which they claim that they were given 52 rights against the Hindu villagers by the Muslim King of Bedar. Their breach is more than a crime. That is how temples and images which had no place in Brahmanism came into Hinduism. Killing the cow was Himsa. That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins. At first, it was an experiment to see how I felt, healthwise. Secondly, it was unnecessary for them to become vegetarians. Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahmanism be taken to be the sole cause why Broken Men became Untouchables? Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice. It is the date when cow-killing became a mortal sin. The strife between Buddhism and Brahmanism is a crucial fact in Indian history. Ambedkar asks in this excerpt from ‘Beef, Brahmins and Broken Men', Barack Obama’s memoir off to record-setting start in sales, Douglas Stuart’s ‘Shuggie Bain’ wins 2020 Booker Prize, Hercule Poirot and his 'little grey cells', Realme aims to set up over 300 exclusive smart stores in India, says CEO Madhav Sheth, Icebreaker leaves Australia after 150 Antarctica trips, Prithipal Singh Gill | A warrior of all 3 Services turns 100, Dilli Chalo | Friendship blooms across barricades at Singhu border, Dilli Chalo | A ‘gym ka langar’ comes up at the Singhu protest site, In Focus: India's spat with Canada, and a larger question of Interventionism in International Affairs, Award-winning South Korean director Kim Ki-duk dies in Latvia, Territory disputes between India and its neighbours are targets for malware campaigns, Iran executes journalist who encouraged 2017 protests, Congress lost focus after my elevation: Pranab Mukherjee in final volume of his memoir, Farmers’ protest: Several roads remain closed in Delhi.