Vedic texts contain verses that support animal sacrifice , then why does Hinduism generally consider eating non-veg to be sin?


Sacrificial killing is allowed and it is regarded as non-killing (Ahimsa) unanimously in all scriptures. So such a killing is not a sin. Therefore, Vedas permitting animal sacrifices doesn't automatically allow all forms of meat eating (like outside of Vedic sacrifice). See the verses given below:

Manu smriti 5.39. Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

5.40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

5.42. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

5.32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others.

5.35. But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences.

57-61. Janaka said :-- “The killing of animals in a sacrificial ceremony is not killing; it is known as Ahimsâ; for that himsâ is not from any selfish attachment; therefore when there is no such sacrifice and the animals are killed out of selfish attachment, then that is real himsâ; there is no other opinion in this. Smoke arises from a fire when fuels are placed in it; and smoke is not seen when no fuel is added. So, O Munisattama! The himsâ, as prescribed in the Vedas, is free from all blemishes, selfish attachment, etc., and therefore it is unblameable. So it follows the himsâ committed by persons attached to objects, is the real himsâ; that can be blamed, but the himsâ of those persons who have no desires is not that sort of himsâ. Therefore the learned men that know the Vedas declare that the himsâ done by the dispassionate persons, with their hearts free from egoism, is no himsâ done at all

Devi Bhagavatam; Book 1; Chapter 18

Generally, Hinduism recommends abstaining from eating meat because it brings great merits as said in the following verse:

Manu 5.56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

Note: “The question: Vedic texts contain verses that support animal sacrifice , then why does Hinduism generally consider eating non-veg to be sin?” is licensed by Stack Exchange Inc (; user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA.