Talk:Vegetarianism and religion/Archive 1

Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review)
I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Vegetarianism
The Acts quotes do not actually seem to prohibit the eating of meat, they just refer to maintaining the Jewish methods of killing an animal (i.e., don't strangle it, and drain it of blood). I recommend someone with more expertise review this area and edit if necessary. In all honesty, I feel that the Christian section is pretty far off-base and in no way does the New Testament seem to either encourage vegetarianism (note that Paul also declares all food "clean") or suggest the nascent church practiced vegetarianism.

About what was mentioned as "vegan fasting" (in Orthodox Christianism) I would like to point out that it cannot be considered vegan, since during this fasting it is allowed to eat seafood (but not fish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.72.38 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Enochian Literature
The Epistle of Jude quotes 1 Enoch. The section seems to quote 2 Enoch (Old Slavonic version). They are two different texts.

Mushrooms
DaGizza, While these sites are not directly talking about mushrooms and the Hindu vegetarian diet (which is why I hesitated putting them in the main page), they reference the fact that they are prohibited in the diet.

says ''Marketing of mushroom is very difficult as still many consider it a non-vegetarian food. The buyers avoid them on auspicious days'' and says not only is beef not to be eaten, but in addition all meats should be abstained from as well as garlic, onions, and mushrooms.

I know several Brahmin families that avoid the mushroom for the same reason. --Pranathi 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism section needs NPOV
The section is not factual. Of all the hindu population less that ten percent are vegetarians. Most of hindus are meat-eaters which includes beef. To represent that most hindus are vegetarians is to use wiki for meaningless propaganda. I really want to have a serious debate about this section before the section can be given a facelift. As a fellow-hindu, I feel that my religion is being hijacked by a few extreme elements. --C9


 * However, from what I can see, the scriptures of Hindusim do not prompt meat-eating, unless a special sacrifice takes place. So to say it is extreme to follow the recommendations of the scriptures that Hindu's are supposedly follow.... Dwayne Kirkwood 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * C9, Vegetarian Hindus are 20-40% of the Hindu population. See the references for these statistics in the vegetarian page. Beef is consumed by a minority of Hindus. Please show references for your statements to engage in the debate. --Pranathi 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Krishna makes the following statements in the Bhagavad Gita which are often quoted as being in favour of the vegetarian diet :


 * Bhagavad Gita 3.13
 * Bhagavad Gita 9.26


 * As I understand it a diet of vegetarian prasad is promoted as the ideal within the Vedic and Puranic scriptures which constitute the philosophical basis of Hinduism. Meat-eating although not forbidden, is generally not promoted due to it's negative karmic consequences to all but the warrior caste. GourangaUK 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that Hinduism only requires Brahman's to be vegetarian? In a way, this suggests a preference for vegetarianism, since this class is deemed to be the "highest."


 * Brahmins are the priestly class in Hinduism, but vegetarian diet is promoted in a number of scriptures as the ideal diet for for anyone interested in spiritual life, not just the official temple priests. GourangaUK 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about what the the scriptures recommend. I am talking about reality. The question one needs to ask is this - Are hindus as a whole be deemed as vegetarians? The answer is NO. Do you regard, a meat-eating person not belonging to warrior caste, as a non-hindu? The answer is NO. It is open to interpretation that scriptures recommend vegetarianism for hindus(sans warrior caste). However there is nothing in scriptures that outcasts a meat-eating hindu. Meat continues to be a staple diet in many hindu families. How illogical is the conclusion that a soldier needs to be strong and hence could eat meat. Farmers need to be strong too. And for unknown reasons I see some people playing wiki like a spin zone. I need this issue addressed as soon as possible. C9


 * But if one is not following the scriptures of Hinduism, then how can they call themselves a Hindu? The warrior and kingly classes traditionally hunted animals in the forest not for strength (which can be gained perfectly well from a vegetarian diet) but for practice in the art of killing. As stated above by Pranathi: "Vegetarian Hindus are 20-40% of the Hindu population. See the references for these statistics in the vegetarian page. Beef is consumed by a minority of Hindus. Please show references for your statements to engage in the debate." Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I dont need any references to make my point. Do I need references to prove that beef is a staple food in UK? Its more like stating the obvious. Majority hindus are meat-eaters. I am stating the obvious. You know it as well as I do.

For your question about scriptures and hinduism - unlike other religions, hindus are born. Hinduism is propagated through brooding and not through spiritual interaction. Following scriptures is NOT the way hinduism is practised. This is not to say that no one follows the scriptures. Just that they are very few and too far between. Ironically, a high percentage of the "few" learned ones happen to be educated and internet-savvy who tend to put this kind of spin that most hindus are vegetarians and other false propoganda. In a way these "few" are actually representing themselves and not the country as a whole. That is why this article needs an NPOV.

The bottomline is - Hinduism is a way of life and meat-eating is very much a intricate part of the way. Even if I go by Pranathi's reference if 20-40% are vegetarian hindus then 60-80% are meat-eating hindus right. That is exactly my point. This article needs to reflect that a majority of hindus are meat-eaters and I am going to make that update. -- C9


 * To quote your reply "unlike other religions, hindus are born. Hinduism is propagated through brooding and not through spiritual interaction. Following scriptures is NOT the way hinduism is practised". I rest my case. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I do not know where you rest your case. If you affirm the above quoted statement I made previously, then you should not use scriptures to determine the meat eating status of hindus. I have seen that you have overridden my updates and do not provide any meaningful reasons for doing so, except that fact that the stuff was there before. That's not how wiki should work.

This time I am providing an explanation for my updates.

Changing - "Most practising Hindus are at least semi-vegetarians, refraining from beef and eating other forms of meat rarely."

To - "Most Hindus are at least semi-vegetarians, refraining from beef."

Explanation - The phrase ".. and eating other forms of meat rarely." is categorically false. Hindus regularly eat meat. Though some Hindus do eat beef, many hindus might not prefer beef since cow is considered sacred. Again I have to make this distinction - Cow being sacred is a popular sentiment, as opposed to something being dictated by the scriptures. A majority of hindus do consider cow as sacred but do not even care the basis for such a sentiment. However you cannot extend this to all other meat products. Also there is no such thing as a practising hindu. People are born hindus, they live as hindus and they die as hindus. For example, not going to temple or not doing pooja or not knowing scriptures does not disqualify one from being a hindu. This might not be true in many other religions.

Changing - "For instance, the Ādivāsīs, the Kshatriyas as well as the coastal habitants in India are largely non-vegetarian (fish eating), with vegetarianism dominant (although still not exclusive) in landlocked states of northern and western India, states like Gujarat (with Jain and Vaishnavic influence), and in most Brahmin and Marwari communities in and around the subcontinent."

To - Vegetarianism is dominant (although still not exclusive) (with Jain and Vaishnavic influence), and in most Brahmin and Marwari communities in and around the subcontinent.

Explanation - The phrase "(fish eating)" kind of implies that coastal hindus do not eat other meat like lamb, goat or chicken. I think it is inappropriate. Also the dominance of vegeterianism is true in specific communities like jains and brahmins, it cannot be applied to the whole region. Remember even by using your side of the argument 60-80% are meat eating hindus. So you dont want to spin by implicating a couple of communities as meat eaters. Mentioning Jains and Brahmins is appropriate. You can add other vegetarian communities if you wish.

Removed - "Most non-vegetarian practising Hindus maintain a vegetarian diet on religious days." Explanation - This statement is not factual. As a matter of fact they even have some religious days that require animal sacrifice as a ritual. Other celebrations and ceremonies routinely include meat cuisine. I removed this line as it seems you want to drive home a meaningless point that there is a breed called practising hindus that prefer vegetarinism. There is no such thing. Hindus are Hindus. 60-80% of them are meat eaters and this estimate is from your side of the argument. Period. :) --C9


 * I've made a number of edits to the section today in order to improve accuracy, and included relevant scriptural quotations. I agree that some statements were a bit too generalising, but still feel that we should distinguish between Vegetarianism in India and Vegeterianism in Hinduism as there is a significant difference. Would you trust a doctor to perform an operation on you just because his father was also a doctor, but he had received no formal training? Of course not, no-one is not born a doctor, one becomes a doctor by receiving training from experienced doctors, studying medical texts and a lot of personal hard-work and effort. So it is with spiritual life within Hinduism. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * GourangaUK is correct here. I find the figures of less than 10% of Hindu as vegeterians unbelievable. From my experience, about 70%+ of Hindus I know of in India and abroad are Hindus, which doesn't take into account people from poorer backgrounds in most cases. But I don't know where these small percentages pop up from. In terms of caste (not varnas), in North India Brahmins and Vaishyas are not supposed to eat meat according to my general knowledge. Kshatriyas eat are traditionally allowed to meat for strength when fighting battles. Of course it isn't always exactly like this in reality. The funny thing is that if I ask any Indian I know of, they will probably estimate at about 50%. I am only a semi-vegetarian, though I don't meat on Tuesdays, Holy Days or during times of Fasting. To be pedantic, the chances of a devout Hindu being veg is much greater than a less religious Hindu, so in that sense there is a very strong correlation between vegetarianism and Hinduism. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing that can be mentioned is that no meat is allowed to be eaten in temples, at least in mainstream denominations of Hinduism nor at holy sites like the Ganges River. Prashad cannot be in the form of meat, which can be supported by one line in the Gita somewhere (can't be bothered to find it) and probably many other scriptures. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindu is not a religion, There are Vaisnavas, Shivites, and many other varieties of what is known as "Hinduism" in the west, the one thing they do hold in common is the scriptures like the Srimad Bhagavatam. I propose to do away with the whole section as the article is supposed to be about vegetarianism and Religion not people from India or Hindustan or wherever. Each belief structure should have its own section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.204.147 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some scholars have taken that position. Wilfred Cantwell Smith (HDS CWSR 1964-73), a scholar of Islam, might have taken that position; I doubt that John B. Carman (HDS CWSR 1973-89), a scholar of Hinduism, would have done so. In terms of how one thinks about 'the problem of understanding' and ways these 'traditions' go about addressing such concerns, there are identifiable similarities.


 * If 'belief structure' has something to do with how any identifiable group of human beings addresses the question of diet, ethics, wisdom, and other inter-related issues, that topic ought (IMO) to be clarified and discussed. After all, isn't at least one claim of philosophy the clarification of understanding? MaynardClark (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about vegetarianism and Islam
The article mentions that some sufi sects or orders have taken to vegetarianism. Can anyone name a specific sect? Siyavash 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do "Mana and Safa" mean anything to you? . I personaly have no idea about islamic sects. --Mig77 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i and Abrahmic
Certainly Baha'i faith claims Abrahmic descent, and could very well be classified as such. However since they also draw from practical all other faiths too, it is impropper to place them under Abrahamic in this classification. It implies that they are mainly or even possibly exclusively Abramic when they are emphaticaly not. Thus I believe that it is more appropriate to keep them under the heading of other (and at the top since they are larger than the other others). --Mig77(t) 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the Baha'i Faith is very much Abrahamic. It follows the same line of prophets from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad, and then Bab and Baha'u'llah, who claimed to fulfill the prophetic statements regarding the return of the Mahdi (in Islam) and Jesus (in Christianity and Islam). Secondly Baha'u'llah claimed to be a descendent of Abraham through Abraham's third wife Katurah, as well as by Sasan, wife of Cyrus, who was a daughter of Davidic lineage. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi (Baha'u'llah's great-grandson) identifies Bahá'u'lláh as a descendent of Jesse, who is in turn descended from Abraham through Isaac. Certainly beyond the average Bahá'í believing it without much research, there are lots of internal claims to prophetic inheritance from Abraham, both lineally and by tradition. In that the Baha'i Faith holds other religions such as Buddhism, and Hinduism (and certainly not all faiths) as true (but misunderstood by its current adherents), does not invalidate the above statements.
 * Furthermore, the Baha'i Faith does not really draw from other faiths, other than saying that they were from the same one God, and believing that they were originally teaching the same message. Far and away, the Baha'i Faith is much more Abrahamic than Dharmic. -- Jeff3000 15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok you seem to have your ducks in a row. However I dont find reference to Baha'u'llah claim of Abrahamic descent. It is besides a very weak argument. A good argument which I happen to agree with, after careful examination, is that the Baha'i Faith:
 * rejects idolatry
 * is monotheistic
 * And does so because of the teachings of Abaraham. This convinces me of Baha'i's statas as Abrahamic. I therefore appologise for my previous edit made in error, as I was mistaken in my understanding of this term.
 * However this does make me question this form of classification, since it is a controversial one. Perhaps Monotheistic / Polytheistic / Other would be better? --Mig77(t) 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Baha'i belief regarding Baha'u'llah's descendency from Abraham, see God Passes By, p. 94. Regarding Baha'u'llah's claimed revelation in the same prophetic tradition as Abraham see the Baha'i Britannica article from 1988 (only one I have). (Note: however, Baha'is believe that it's not specifically because of the teachings of Abraham, but because of the same one God who sent Abraham, along with the other Manifestations of God, who instructed the Messengers to teach) And the Baha'i Faith does indeed reject idolatry, and is a strong monotheistic (in opposition to Christianity which some argue can sometimes be looked upon as tritheistic due to the doctrine of the trinity). I agree, a Monothesitic/Polytheistic classification is probably better. Regards. -- Jeff3000 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Monotheistic/Polytheistic would not work as at least Sikhism unlike Hinduism is monotheistic rather than polytheistic - but Sikhism is very Dharmic like Hinduism. So, I think now that the Baha'i faith has settled into its correct grouping, we should leave these categories intact as it makes sense to divide them into say 3 or 4 groups rather than deal with 20 or more individual religions. The article List of religions makes this division and the benefits seem clear from just looking at the long list of religions in each of these groupings --Hari Singh 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of the page
I see recently that someone has reverted the page back into date order - which I agree makes much more sense in this article. Giving that the 'religions' more associated with a vegetarian diet also tend to be the oldest ones. In terms of relevancy it seems appropriate. GourangaUK 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. According to the Abrahmic texts when man was created he was only permitted a vegetarian diet. Only after the great flood of Noah was meat eating permitted (see Genisis). I am not sure where in time Hinduism places the requirement of vegetarianism, but I dont see how a point before the creation of man can be bested. (These views may not represent my personal beliefs) --09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but without getting into a biblical time-line debate it still seems to make more sense to me to have the dharmic religions (Hinduism and Jainism especially) as the first groups for discussion in the article as vegetarianism is more important in these traditions - or at least they are more well known as promoters of vegetarianism. It looks back to front otherwise to have religious groups of whomn the majority do not follow a vegetarian diet as being the first points the article. I understand this could be classed as a somewhat subjective argument, but from a common-sense perspective surely it is logical? GourangaUK 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism
I plan some changes in the section on Hinduism, for the following reasons:

1. The present structure of the section should be improved. There should be a historical subsection first - the historical background is completely absent so far. The article offers no information on the conflict between the views of vegetarians and meat eaters in the course of history, which is reflected in the sources.

2. The second subsection, "Scriptural viewpoint", is incomplete. It should contain all the essential quotes from scriptures including the ones which permit meat eating under specified conditions. The present collection of quotes gives the impression that all scriptures just recommended or even enjoined vegetarianism - so one wonders, if Krishna and the Hindu deities disapproved of killing and meat eating, then how could the brahmins dare to sacrifice animals to the gods and to eat their meat regularly in the Vedic period and even much later, for so many centuries? Either meat is a pure and valuable commodity and as such suitable for Prasad, or not. If it is, then there is no point advocating vegetarianism. If it isn't, then why are there so many statements in scriptures and other ancient texts declaring that animal sacrifice and subsequent meat eating is o.k.? The reader of the article should learn something about such contradictions, and possible explanations suggested by unbiased scholars.

The changes mentioned above will enlarge the section. As there is already a separate article on Buddhist vegetarianism, it may make sense to create one on Hindu vegetarianism as well. 89.54.149.21 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to change the section into an historical one - it needs to provide details, largely in regards to Hinduism as it exists now with appropriate scriptural references etc... Animal sacrifices within Vedic times are a different issue. A number of contemporary Hindu scholars also describe that the Brahmins of that particular period are believed to have "abused the system" - but that's getting into too much specific detail for this article in my opinion. If there were quotes from scripture which promote or advocate a diet which includes meat (not simply a reference to animal sacrifices) then I would see that as relevant.Gouranga(UK) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, but the fact remains that the present structure is not satisfying, and the presentation of the stuff is not concise. It is not well organized. There should be a clear distinction between the contents of the three subsections. The first subsection should comprise a summary of different viewpoints in the relevant sources; the second subsection should only consist of quotes of essential scriptural passages directly relevant for vegetarianism; the third subsection should be made more concise (removing matters which don’t concern vegetarianism, such as alcohol, onions, mushrooms; removing repetitions of stuff already mentioned above). I have started to work on this and hope to finish it soon. 89.49.137.254 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the "scriptural viewpoint" is rather dubious, in terms of WP:SYN. "Yajur Veda 12.32" is handed around on the internet, but this is not an actual citation. YV VSM 12.32 runs "Agni, go forth resplendent, thou with thine auspicious flames of fire. Shining with mighty beams of light harm not my people with thy form.". YV TS has books 1-7 only. I don't doubt this verse exists, but it has to be cited properly, including, whose translation is this. The RV verse is against cow-eating and man-eating demons and has nothing to do with vegetarianism. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After wasting a lot of time trying in vain to verify the Yajurveda quote, I had already decided to remove both quotes in the new version which will be finished very soon. As for the Rigveda quote, I found three translations which differ considerably from the one given in this article 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." All these translations, particularly the one in the article, seem to contain some interpretation on the part of the translators. None of them points out that it's a demon. 89.54.149.2 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ludwig Alsdorf in his paper "Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien" p. 592-593 discusses an interesting episode dealing with vegetarianism in "Mahabharata XII 246", but I can't find it there or in the neighbouring sections. I don't believe it's a mistake on his part. There are different counts of the sections of that book. Do you know whether there is an online concordance for this? 89.54.149.2 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
I got several claims on several websites about Zoroastrian ideas on vegetarianism, but none seem to conform to WP:RS. If someone can verify these against reliable sources, that would be great.


 * "According to Colin Spencer in The Heretic's Feast, Zoroaster was not only a vegetarian, he also disavowed animal sacrifice."


 * High Priest Atrupat-e Emetan in Denkard Book VI:
 * "ku.san enez a-on ku urwar xwarishn bawed shmah mardoman ku derziwishn bawed, ud az tan i gospand pahrezed, ce amar was, eg Ohrmaz i xwaday hay.yarih i gospand ray urwar was dad."


 * "They hold this also: Be plant eaters (urwar xwarishn) (i.e vegetarian), O you, men, so that you may live long. Keep away from the body of cattle (tan i gospand), and deeply reckon that Ohrmazd, the Lord has created plants in great number for helping cattle (and men)."


 * "The Shah Namah states that the evil king of Iran, Zohak was first taught eating meat by the evil one who came to him in the guise of a cook. This was the start of an age of great evil for Iran. Prior to this, in the Golden age of mankind in the days of the great Aryan Kings, man did not eat meat."


 * "The Pahlavi scriptures state that in the final stages of the world, when the final Saviour Saoshyant arrives, man will become more spiritual and gradually give up meat eating. " (and other sources)

deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Religions of India
The title "Religions of India" (instead of "Dharmic Religions") seems to be inappropriate, as most Buddhists live outside of India. "Religions of Indian origin" may be better. 89.54.146.21 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Jesus a vegetarian?
One of the miracles that Jesus performed is about 5 loaves and 10 fishes. He actually multiplied fishweed, not actual fish. Because they were right next to the sea. They could have gone fishing. So, it was fishweed. Besides, multiplying fish that were already dead to feed people who have no objection to eating fish does not show Jesus killing animals, but show an act of compassion.

Jesus was a member of the Nazarene Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that followed vegetarianism and rejected animal sacrifices. So, it is true that Jesus was a vegetarian. If the Bible says Jesus eating meat, it was a translation error. Also, the word "meat" means- flesh of any fruit.


 * It is disputed whether he was or wasn't . nirvana2013 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Should this article, along with its associated category, be moved to Religion and vegetarianism? This article describes people who are vegetarian because of their religion - therefore being vegetarian follows their religion. The title should perhaps reflect this. Religion is also the bigger subject, with vegetarianism being only one part of peoples faith (others may include Religion and alcohol, for example). Religion comes first, vegetarianism second. The exception to this is perhaps when people have had personal spiritual experiences following a "purification" of their diet. In this minority case spirituality and mysticism follow vegetarianism rather than precede it. Comments please. nirvana2013 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that this article discusses Vegetarianism from a religious perspective, rather than religion from a Vegetarian perspective, which would be a different concept. At least that's the way I see it. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gouranga's comment; it seems to me to be talking about Vegetarianism in a religious context, not the other way 'round. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Outcome
Since it's been two weeks and there doesn't seem to be consensus to move, I'm closing the discussion. If I've misinterpreted the above comments, please re-open (or be WP:BOLD). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism and vegetarianism
I have a strong problem with the following statement at the beginning of this section: "Some people in Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal, on the contrary some do not. There are no religious requirements for hindus to be vegetarians." Per Wikipedia's rules on sources, strong claims require strong evidence. It is a pretty blanket statement to say that Hinduism has "no religious requirement" on vegetarianism. There are literally hundreds of millions of Hindus who would strongly disagree with such a statement. And, the only source cited for it is this one, a brief FAQ written by an unknown author supposedly associated with the Himalayan Academy. This source is questionably reliable in and of itself, but it is definitely not strong enough for such a blanket statement. I had replaced the statement and its questionable source with just a generalized introductory sentence, but User:Sikh-history reverted me. In the interest of consensus-building, I have brought the matter here. What are the thoughts of the community. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Hnsampat, I have added a few more links too. Will find other sources too. I don't think Vashnavite Hindu's have a monopoly on Hinduism. What are your thoughts? --Sikh-history (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the sources you added are better than the one you had before. I also agree that nobody has a monopoly on Hinduism...and that is why I am saying that nobody should make any blanket statements about what all Hindus believe. Saying that Hinduism has "no religious requirement" on vegetarianism is too blanket a statement. Many Hindus believe that they are required to be vegetarian. Others believe that vegetarianism is encouraged, but not required. Others deny vegetarianism altogether. We cannot, cannot, cannot make a blanket statement about all Hindus. That's all I'm saying. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, My I am a Sikh by conversion and my caste is Rajput/Kshatriya. According to Dharma I am permitted to eat meat, and my Avastha is such that I require it. I am a vegetarian by choice, but any views on that? --Sikh-history (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to keep my comments strictly focused on the article, since that is what this talk page is for. The one source you added from "The Clove Garden" didn't strike me as being reliable per Wikipedia's standards. I think there should be some kind of statistic about the percentage of Hindus that are vegetarian, but it has to come from a source such as some kind of scholarly work, not just any website. "Clove Garden" is primarily a recipe site. It is therefore NOT a reliable source for statistics about Hinduism. Remember, you can't just cite any source that you find. It must be reliable. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address a few points, since User:Sikh-history just saw fit to put a warning template on my user talk page against "ownership of articles." First, I am not claiming ownership of this article in any way shape or form. You and I are simply having a disagreement over content. Second, there is nothing in Wikipedia's rules that forbids the removal of obviously unreliable sources. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is always on the user who added the information, not on the user who tries to remove it. Furthermore, after deleting the "Clove Garden" link, I did indeed raise the issue here at the talk page. Now, you've reverted me. Fine. Could you please just now offer your explanation as to why the "Clove Garden" link is a reliable source? If you can't provide enough evidence of "Clove Garden" being a reliable source for statistics on the percentage of Hindus that are vegetarian, then we will have no choice but to delete that link. I'm trying to cooperate here. Please meet me halfway on this. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Hnsampat, I can see that you are being reasonable. Let's try and work on this to get some neutrality. The reason why I choose that link was if you look at the bottom, it goes to 4 other sites which seem to have some good info. I could be wrong. What do you think?--Sikh-history (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being cooperative. I took a look at those links, and two of them are not reliable and two are partially reliable. Two of them ( and ) go to websites with no author information or any other information given. It is therefore difficult to assess the claims made on those sites, as we can't tell if they are made by any kind of authority figure. As such, those two sources have to be discounted as being unreliable per Wikipedia's standards. One of the links goes to an opinion piece written in The Hindu by a scholar. Because it is an opinion piece and therefore inherently biased, we can't use it as a basis for facts. However, we can cite it when we talk about the debate in India (e.g., by saying, "According to Prof. So-and-So, who disagrees with notion of Mughal introduction of beef-eating in India, blah blah blah."). Likewise, the fourth source  goes to the Himalayan Academy's official website. We can use their site to specifically cite what the Himalayan Academy's views are or to show the Himalayan Academy's views as being an example of a certain viewpoint in Hinduism. But, we can't use them as a source for all Hindus. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read WP:RS in detail, to get a sense of what kind of sources we can use here and exactly how limited the scope of their use can be. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Hnsampat. If you look at most of the article most of it based purely on Bhagwadad Gita and Mahabharta, the one reference used previously is this . That would be counted as opinion too. I think we need someone independent to sort out what constititues a refrence here and what does not. Shall we get some mediation involed? This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinneed seems quite impartial. He has helped edit quit a few contention Sikh articles. What do you say? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to do a formal Request for mediation here, but I'm always open to the idea of getting opinions. I'd like to get SEVERAL other editors involved in this discussion. Because we're on the talk page here, I'm sure several other users are watching our discussion and I'd like to invite them to please weigh in. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

misquote
The whole section on the "Jewish perspective" is completely not Jewish. Maybe reform but all those opinions quoted like rav kook are not true at all and certainly ate meat. All the biblical qoutes are misused and out of context. Very little is cited. Im a student at orthodox jewish school and even i can quikley tell that the article is not made as a factual informative but a vegatarian ego booster. for example Tzar balli chaim the prohabiton of causing pain to an animal Is out of context there are no commentaters that say that is a reason not eat meat. The sin offering was a cow! that wouuld make no sense acc. to whoever wrote the article. Becuase god would not want sin offering by commiting more prohabitons. Any questions May be sent to ntnyfranky@gmail. Any qestion will sent to my rabbi for a proper full Jewish answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.0.132 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for my edit.
The following is the explanation of this edit of mine, which got reverted (actually twice - by Sikh-history and Node ue):


 * (1) Religions of Indian origin -> Indian religions // Because the technical term in classification is Indian religions and the other is simply superfluous.


 * (2) Dharmic religions -> Indian religions // technical term + easily the common name and that is the reason why the Wikipedia article on this is termed "Indian religions" not "Dharmic religions"


 * In Hinduism section;


 * (3a) On the source that supported the sentence "30% of all Hindus are vegetarian" there was a " " tag. So i added another Reliable source // I cant even guess why this was reverted.


 * (3b) The next sentence went like this : "Other sects of Hindus do not observe vegetarianism.". There was no previous sentence talking about any sects whatsoever, so I removed it. It made no sense suddenly talking about "Other sects" when you haven't previously discussed about some sect(s). Note that the above said 30% people are not sectarian based.


 * (3c) the next sentence went like this : "In India, latest reports indicate that meat consumption is actually going up". Now, this sentence was plainly referring to India - India is a multi-religious country and injecting such a statement into "Hinduism" section is unsuitable.


 * (4) I put Jainism before Buddhism because, since Jainism is considered to be older than Buddhism, the regular order that is followed academically when discussing about Indian religions is - Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism.


 * (5) I moved the "Jhatka" section to Sikhism ; AFAIK this concept is more important to Sikhs than is to Hindus. Sikhs strict more to this than Hindus do. Its importance in the Sikh heritage is well documented . Even, Khalsa Code of Conduct recommends this for the meat eating Sikhs.


 * In Islam section;


 * (6a) The section was more of discussing Taboo food, than the religion's relation with vegetarianism. Does anyone think that banning pork and allowing other meat has anything to do with vegetarianism ? No, the pork ban is due to some other reason.


 * (6b) The other sentence i removed said "... a large portion of the meat has to be given towards the poor and hungry people so they can all join in the feast on Eid-ul-Adha. The remainder is cooked for the family celebration meal in which relatives and friends are invited to share"  - which has nothing to do with the relation between vegetarian and the religion.


 * Pls let me know why i was reverted.  Arjun  codename024  18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem offended - sorry, that was not my intention. WRT Islam, banning one kind of meat, no matter which one it is, is a step towards vegetarianism. One could say that all meat is simply taboo food for many Hindus... this page is talking about abstention from meat for religious reasons, and from my perspective that should include any abstention from any kind of meat with bases in religion. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than "(6a)"; are you in agreement with the other points mentioned ? BTW; I wasn't offended, rather disturbed that my edits were viewed in the light of malice and that it was reverted in its entirety.  Arjun  codename024 08:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sikh History Reply

 * Hi Arjun  I will address the points that concern me:

'':*(3a) On the source that supported the sentence "30% of all Hindus are vegetarian" there was a " " tag. So i added another Reliable source // I cant even guess why this was reverted.''


 * See the discussion above. We have had long and protracted discussions about this, and the consensus was to leave it in. The source is fine as we could not find any other stats. So that tag should have been removed, and not the source.

'':*(3c) the next sentence went like this : "In India, latest reports indicate that meat consumption is actually going up". Now, this sentence was plainly referring to India - India is a multi-religious country and injecting such a statement into "Hinduism" section is unsuitable.''


 * I agree, but I think we need to remove all sources that relate to India, and not Hinduism. Note though, Hindu animal sacrifice is still sizeable. See here.

References seemed to have been removed that referred specifically to Hinduism.

''*(5) I moved the "Jhatka" section to Sikhism ; AFAIK this concept is more important to Sikhs than is to Hindus. Sikhs strict more to this than Hindus do. Its importance in the Sikh heritage is well documented. Even, Khalsa Code of Conduct recommends this for the meat eating Sikhs.''


 * This statement is wrong. The Indian Government is investing heavily in an abattoir to cater for this. In Northern India, Jhatka is part of the Rajput, Kshatriya, Jat, and other Hindu caste heritage.Also the reference is valid and clearly refers to Hindu's.


 * Note that I was reverting to what had been inserted by other editors on the Hindu section. There had previously been an edit war. So please bare in mind any pro-Vegetarian Hindu bias that has occurred in the past.


 * Also Arjun you removed many perfectly good references without out a discussion. To my mind the sources have all been discussed and it was agreed to leave them in some time ago.


 * I tend to take a hard line against people who remove references, particularly in controversial subject such as this.


 * Thanks --Sikh- History 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * i rest my case on (5) since it's part of Hindu and Sikh tradition, it doesn't really matter.
 * On (3a) i DID NOT remove any reference like you accuse me of; rather i added a new Reliable reference from "The world religions cookbook" because the credibility of "clovegarden.com" reference was under question. But, i did delete that tag because a new credible reference was now present, and i thought the "clovegarden.com" could be removed later.


 * I removed 2 sources whose cited sentences made no sense in the context -
 * as i mentioned in (3b), talking about "Other sects" without mentioning about any sects previously is non-sensical.
 * describing a meat consumption trend of "Indians" where one is supposed to talk exclusively about "Hindus" is unacceptable.
 * In my edit summaries for these edits (see and ), i have briefly described why did so. yet i do not understand why user:Sikh-history says that i have "removed many perfectly good references without out a discussion" and pass sanctimonious drivels on his reversion policies.  Arjun  codename024  23:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sikh History Reply

 * What case?This is a discussion. Please re-read what you did Arjun. See this edit. You clearly removed cited refrences that referred to other sects. One was a website (which had in previous discussion had been decided upon to stay) and the other a properly cited book. If you have a problem with this then by all mean go for WP:Mediation.


 * Also Arjun, it maybe useful for you to do some research into Northern India Hindu practice. See here.

Thanks --Sikh- History 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also. This link you criticised as being about Indians, is a survey carried out amongst Hindu castes as well. Thanks --Sikh- History 12:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article which is titled "The food habits of a nation" is talking about Indians in general; not exclusively about Hindus. Why dont you understand what i have been repeating again and again about the "Other sects " thing - I REMOVED IT BECAUSE - ITS ONLY WHEN YOU WRITE ABOUT ATLEAST ONE SECT THAT YOU CAN GO AND WRITE THE NEXT SENTENCE ABOUT "Other sects", WHICH IS NOT DONE HERE. Mentioning some characteristics of "Other sects" without mentioning about any sect is ridiculous. Moreover, the said 30% vegetarian Hindus do not belong to any single sect or any category of sects. There is no need of WP:Mediation for this, this is simple common sense  Arjun  codename024 13:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's obvious you feel quite strongly about this, and are not aware of previous edits and disputes in this article. I think WP:Mediation is the best course. This actually breaks it down by caste. As far as I am aware, Hindu's follow caste. Also, try reading the reference. It is actually about "Other Sects". Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that Sikh-history has edited it out; in the present version of the article, the "other sects" issue is non-existent. Now, we need a 3rd person opinion on this article whether it talks about "Indians" or "Hindus" - which i hope will solve the entire issue.  Arjun  codename024 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is quite clearly about Indians in general, not just Hindus. (Is there confusion because of the name of the newspaper? :P) It does give numbers for certain subpopulations (e.g. 55% of Brahmins are vegetarian), and we can use those numbers, but we cannot conclude anything about the percentage among all Hindus without knowing more about their sample population. Aside: I understand how frustrating it feels to have one's edits reverted wholesale; I think the solution is to stay unperturbed and make edits in small pieces so that points of disagreement can be identified and isolated. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Replying to User:Sikh-history) A book may say "other sects" in some context, but it is meaningless to talk of "other sects" in the article without specifying at least one sect first. Also, a wholesale revert like this ought to be accompanied by some discussion, I think. (Though I agree the original edit would have been better as multiple ones.) Shreevatsa (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Points (1) and (2) have been redone by User:Shreevatsa. Since no users have objected against this, the edit may be considered based on consensus. Moreover, no one so far contested points (4) and (6b). Therefore, i have assumed no objection on those and have re-done it (see ). Arjun  codename024 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh consensus. What a wonderful thing. :) Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 19:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

tag
There's currently a paragraph in the article which says: "Vegetarianism is an integral part of the teachings of Hinduism, although there are a wide variety of practices and beliefs that have changed over time. An estimated 20 to 30% of all Hindus are vegetarians. Some sects of Hindus do not observe vegetarianism."

It has been considered necessary to add a tag after the first comma, even though there is a citation there. It is fine to ask for a citation when one does not exist, but it doesn't make sense when something is directly quoted from the source. More importantly, the rationale for the tag seems to be based on one editor's interpretation of what the sentence means ("what about…?"), which is not the sort of thing we do here on Wikipedia. If we disagree with a sentence in a publication, we can only write to the author. [Aside: "Hinduism" is sufficiently broad that for any statement of the form "X is an integral teaching in Hinduism", there is some Y for which we can ask "what about Y?". Examples of X include puja, karma, the existence of God, etc. This doesn't mean that X isn't integral; it's just that "integral" does not mean "important to everyone". There is no chance of such a misinterpretation anyway, since the rest of the paragraph clarifies this. Anyway, this aside is not important, because the simple fact is that when there is already a citation, we cannot use our own interpretations to tag it further.] Shreevatsa (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, will add a few citations here in a few days to get your opinion. Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegan (Coined 1944)..
Lol; The Buddha was familiar with modern verbiage, vegan lifestyle.. Ka'Jong wonders if anyone has checked the verifiableness of the content below/in article..

The Buddha goes on to emphasize that meat-eating cannot coexist with the great compassion and calls for not just a vegetarian, but a vegan lifestyle.[36]^ a b c d Phelps, Norm. The Great Compassion: Buddhism & Animal Rights. Lantern Books. New York, 2004. pp. XIII, 31, 32, 34, 49, 61, 62, 65, 85, 147. ISBN 1-59056-069-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka'Jong (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish vegetarianism
I would suggest that a new article is created titled Jewish vegetarianism. Much more information is now available since the article was deleted in 2006. See Jewish Vegetarians of North America, A Sacred Duty (film), pamphlet from PETA, a rabbic thesis and If This Is Kosher... by Jonathan Safran Foer, for example. Comments please. I will go ahead and create it if there is no objections over the coming days. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahinsa versus Ahimsa
This is an ongoing debate. The 'Etymology' section of the Wikipedia article 'Ahimsa' (where searching for 'ahinsa' reverts to the article 'ahimsa') credits 'ahinsa' in the following way:

The word Ahimsa - sometimes spelled as Ahinsa - is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming or nonviolence.

There is a debate on the origins of the word Ahimsa, and how its meaning evolved. Mayrhofer as well as Dumot suggest the root word may be han which means kill, which leads to the interpretation that ahimsa means do not kill. Schmidt as well as Bodewitz explain the proper root word is hiṃs and the Sanskrit verb hinasti, which leads to the interpretation ahimsa means do not injure, or do not hurt. Wackernagel-Debrunner concur with the latter explanation.

Ancient texts use ahimsa to mean non-injury, a broader concept than non-violence. Non-injury implies not killing others, as well as not hurting others mentally or verbally; it includes avoiding all violent means - including physical violence - anything that injures others. In classical Sanskrit literature of Hinduism, another word Adrohi is sometimes used instead of Ahimsa, as one of the cardinal virtues necessary for moral life. One example is in Baudhayana Dharmasutra 2.6.23: वाङ्-मनः-कर्म-दण्डैर् भूतानाम् अद्रोही (One who does not injure others with words, thoughts or acts is named Adrohi).

Princeton scholarship readily available on this topic has a section on Vedism:

Vedism

The term ahinsa appears in the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7), where it refers to non-injury to the sacrificer himself.[2] It occurs several times in the Shatapatha Brahmana in the sense of "non-injury" without a moral connotation.[3] The ahimsa doctrine is a late development in Brahmanical culture.[4] The earliest reference to the idea of non-violence to animals (pashu-ahimsa), apparently in a moral sense, is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda (KapS 31.11), which may have been written in about the 8th century BCE.[5] The word scarcely appears in the principal Upanishads.[6] The Chandogya Upanishad, dated to the 8th or 7th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, has the earliest evidence for the use of the word ahimsa in the sense familiar in Hinduism (a code of conduct). It bars violence against "all creatures" (sarva-bhuta) and the practitioner of ahimsa is said to escape from the cycle of reincarnation (CU 8.15.1).[7] It also names ahimsa as one of five essential virtues (CU 3.17.4). Some scholars are of the opinion that this passage was a concession to growing influence of shramanic culture on the Brahmanical religion.[8]

Size of Religion
Doug Weller indicates that a religious movement needs to be 'large enough' so as to be listed along with its connection yet at the beginning it states for example that even among the Abrahamic belief-systems there are but small groups advocating forms of veganism and/or vegetarianism.63.173.125.140 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There ought to be ways to address the recurring phenomenon of spontaneously erupting vegetarianism in the various world religions. It's been happening for a very, very, very, very long time. Books have been written about it. Maybe that topic deserves its own Wikipedia article.  It's worthy of a doctoral thesis in religion somewhere (and thus yet another book). MaynardClark (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That has some independent sources, and we are talking about "small" related to billions of people adhering to those religions. Creativity on the other hand might not have even the 5000 members it had in the early 90s. That's really tiny. Even if we keep it, we need a proper independent source meeting WP:RS, but I still say it's too miniscule. Ah, in 2003 Hale's group had about 300 members. Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The listed source says Creativity even identifies as "atheist" which it doesnt. Creativity is certainly non-theistic but so is the Church of Satan. The very title of the book shows it is not without bias, stating itself as "confronting right-wing extremism" a spectral view implying the ones writing it are the opposite of it. Nonetheless, what seems to really be the issue is the idea of evil racist neo-Nazi White supremacists (as labelled by ideological adversaries) on a page involving vegetarianism. Even though Creativity is a religion and its proper to list it. As for size, have we forgotten that alleged minorities are actually vast majorities, and for example white females of child-bearing age number less than 2% of the global population. There arent vast hordes gonna be following Creativity like with hinduism, Islam and even Bahai. The size of the group doesnt matter. Its just an excuse to not have Creativity listed. Even though nobody is touching the black separatist Nation of Islam. Its not lack of soucing.72.175.246.54 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So a movement that has only a couple of hundred adherents has the right to be mentioned in any relevant article? No, that's not how we work. The Nation of Islam had an estimated membership of 50,000 a few years ago. Big difference. Doug Weller (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is a religious movement and it promotes vegetarianism, then yes. Nation of Islam received money from Muammar Gaddafi to build Mosque Maryam in Chicago, and despite Louis Farrakhan being Pro-Black he is allowed to give speeches all over the country. See: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwmMbOgadTs Your "hundreds" are mere guess. There are an estimated thousands in eastern Europe.72.175.246.54 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)