Is India the first culture to discover vegetarianism?

skhande2

Newcomer
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Reaction score
2
Age
35
Location
USA
Lifestyle
  1. Vegetarian
Is India the first culture to discover vegetarianism? (that we can survive without meat)

Its remarkable without scientific trials to be able to discover that we can make do with just milk and non-animal based diet. Is there really something to India's meditational awareness? Thanks
 
Vegetarianism was also practiced in ancient Europe and maybe closer to strict vegetarianism than in India where milk is given a great importance. Some people claim the similarities between East and West at the time point to a common origin in which the practice of vegetarianism might be included. Through necessity people in different places of the world might have realised it is possible to live without animal foods.

But honestly don't know who arrived at it first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urban Gardener
It’s hard to say because so much of the historical record is missing.

It’s likely that people ate vegan diets out of necessity at times. Meat isn’t always available. Or they might have eaten insects instead of vertebrates.

A diet of plants, fungi and insects probably predates the plants plus dairy diet. Consuming dairy is a relatively recent and regionally specific practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fakei
Is India the first culture to discover vegetarianism? (that we can survive without meat)

Probably. Notice that the OP used the word vegetarianism. the modern definition of vegetarianism includes milk and eggs in a diet.

The earliest records of vegetarianism as a concept and practice amongst a significant number of people are from ancient India, especially among the Hindus[1] and Jains.[2] Later records indicate that small groups within the ancient Greek civilizations in southern Italy and Greece also adopted some dietary habits similar to vegetarianism.[3] In both instances, the diet was closely connected with the idea of nonviolence toward animals (called ahimsa in India), and was promoted by religious groups and philosophers.[4]

- History of vegetarianism - Wikipedia

I think it's interesting to note that both people of India and the ancient Greeks adopted vegetarianism because of religious beliefs that included reincarnation. One of the Greek philosophers said something like he would not slaughter and eat an animal because it might be the reincarnation of his uncle Ted. Or maybe in his next life he might come back as his neighbor's lamb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David3
Right, but veganism is a form of vegetarianism. As long as you don’t consome the body parts of post-embryonic animals, you’re a vegetarian.
 
Ancient Greek philosophers used several different arguments. These included religious ones like reincarnation (broad beans were also excluded from the Pythagorean diet for this reason) or considering that an offer of blood was not adequate to the gods, or the idea that animal products were impure rejecting also the use of animal skins (neopythagoreans walked barefoot for instance); but also included arguments based on empathy and disapproval for the treatment and suffering of animals and anathomy based arguments. Notice that in one of the quotes below Plutarch does not approach the reincarnation issue from a merely religious faith based perspective but from a rational skeptical one i.e. when in doubt not to act:

Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras1 had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind Bthe first man2 who did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale3 bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds?



CThe skins shivered; and upon the spits the flesh bellowed,
Both cooked and raw; the voice of kine was heard.4


Though this is an invention and a myth, yet that sort of dinner is really portentous — when a man craves the p543 meat that is still bellowing, giving instructions which tell us on what animals we are to feed while they are still alive uttering their cries, and organizing various methods of seasoning and roasting and serving. It is the man5 who first began these practices that one should seek out, not him who all too late desisted.(...)

This was the only festival that those times had discovered; all else was a medley of anguish and gloom. But you who live now, what madness, what frenzy drives you to the pollution of shedding blood, you who have such a superfluity of necessities? Why slander the earth by implying that she cannot support you? Why impiously offend law-giving Demeter11 and p547 bring shame upon Dionysus, lord of the cultivated vine,12 the gracious one, as if you did not receive enough from their hands? Are you not ashamed to mingle domestic crops with blood and gore? You call serpents and panthers and lions savage, but you yourselves, by your own foul slaughters, leave them no room to outdo you in cruelty; Bfor their slaughter is their living, yours is a mere appetizer."13 (...)
We declare, then, that it is absurd for them to say that the practice of flesh-eating is based on Nature. For that man is not naturally carnivorous is, in the first place, obvious from the structure of his body.18 A man's frame is in no way similar to those creatures who were made for flesh-eating: he has no hooked beak or sharp nails or jagged teeth, 995no strong stomach or warmth of vital fluids able to digest and assimilate a heavy diet of flesh.19 It is from this very fact, the evenness of our teeth, the smallness of our mouths, the softness of our tongues, our possession of vital fluids too inert to digest meat that Nature disavows our eating of flesh. If you declare that you are naturally designed for such a diet, then first kill for yourself what you want to eat. Do it, however, only through your own resources, p553 unaided by cleaver or cudgel orº any kind of axe. Rather, just as wolves and bears and lions themselves slay what they eat, Bso you are to fell an ox with your fangs or a boar with your jaws, or tear a lamb or hare in bits. Fall upon it and eat it still living, as animals do.20 But if you wait for what you eat to be dead, if you have qualms about enjoying the flesh while life is still present, why do you continue, contrary to nature, to eat what possesses life? Even when it is lifeless and dead, however, no one eats the flesh just as it is; men boil it and roast it, altering it by fire and drugs, recasting and diverting and smothering with countless condiments the taste of gore so that the palate may be deceived and accept what is foreign to it.

It was, indeed, a witty remark of the Spartan21 who bought a little fish in an inn Cand gave it to the innkeeper to prepare. When the latter asked for cheese and vinegar and oil,22 the Spartan said, "If I had those, I should not have bought a fish." But we are so refined in our blood-letting that we term flesh a supplementary food;23 and then we need "supplements" for the flesh itself, mixing oil, wine, honey, fish paste, vinegar, with Syrian and Arabian spices,24 as though we were really embalming a corpse for p555 burial. The fact is that meat is so softened and dissolved and, in a way, predigested that it is hard for digestion to cope with it; and if digestion loses the battle, the meats affect us with dreadful pains and malignant forms of indigestion.

Plutarch • On Meat-Eating (I)



et even if the argument of the migration of souls from body to body is not demonstrated to the point of complete belief, there is enough doubt to make us quite cautious and fearful. It is as though in a clash of armies by night33 you had drawn your sword and were rushing at a man whose fallen body was hidden by his armour and should hear someone remarking that he wasn't quite sure, but that he thought and believed that the prostrate figure was that of your son or brother or father or tent-mate — which would be the better course: to approve a false suspicion and spare your enemy as your friend, or to disregard an uncertain authority and kill your friend as your foe? The latter course you will declare to be shocking. EConsider also Merope34 in the play raising her axe against her son himself because she believes him to be that son's murderer and saying



This blow I give you is more costly yet —


what a stir she rouses in the theatre as she brings them to their feet in terror lest she wound the youth before the old man can stop her! Now suppose one old man stood beside her saying, "Hit him! He's your enemy," and another who said, "Don't strike! He is your son": which would be the greater misdeed, to omit the punishment of an enemy because of the son, or to slay a child under the impulse of p577 anger against an enemy? In a case, then, where it is not hate or anger or self-defence or fear for ourselves that induces us to murder, Fbut the motive of pleasure, and the victim stands there under our power with its head bent back and one of our philosophers says, "Kill it! It's only a brute beast"; but the other says, "Stop! What if the soul of some relative or friend has found its way into this body?" — Good God! Of course the risk is equal or much the same in the two cases — if I refuse to eat flesh, or if I, disbelieving, kill my child or some other relative! Plutarch • On Meat-Eating (II)
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lou
Right, but veganism is a form of vegetarianism. As long as you don’t consome the body parts of post-embryonic animals, you’re a vegetarian.
Veganism is an offshoot of vegetarianism. and the word itself only goes back to 1945.

Vegetarianism goes back thousands of years.

The OP uses the word culture in her question. but you do bring up the idea that early people might have been vegetarian. My idea on the subject is that early people may have had a vegetarian diet but that they weren't vegetarian. I think the concept of vegetarianism includes intent.

But it is something interesting to think about.
 
The word vegan and the doctrine may have appeared only in the 20th century but the practice of strict vegetarianism may be as old as other forms of vegetarianism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urban Gardener
The word vegan and the doctrine may have appeared only in the 20th century but the practice of strict vegetarianism may be as old as other forms of vegetarianism.
Neither the ancient Greeks or Hindus were strict vegetarians. Although there may have been some strict vegetarians around back then.
 
i think a lot of he reason people were vegetarian in india is that it is easier to obtain lentils, rice, vegetables and spices in big amounts than meat, and lentils provided an excellent protein source for them which meant they could kick meat to the kerb.