Does Everyone Who Eat Meat Go To Hell – What About Their Other Good Deeds?

When we talk about scriptural statements, for example, the idea that someone goes to hell just because they eat meat—then by that logic, 90% of human society would end up in hell. But what about the other good activities they may have done? Will they enjoy the results of those separately? And if not, then what exactly is the nature or purpose of such scriptural statements?

Scripture functions more like a living tradition, and to understand it properly, we need two approaches: a synthetic understanding and an analytic understanding. By synthetic, I mean an integrated view, and by analytic, an isolated view.

Let me give an example using language learning. When children learn their first language, they don’t begin by learning grammar. They simply hear people around them speaking, and then start speaking themselves. In fact, most of us used nouns, adjectives, and verbs for years before we even learned those terms. The rules of grammar exist, but in real life, various rules often come together in dynamic ways. Sometimes a sentence might seem grammatically incorrect based on one rule, but it’s actually correct because a different rule applies. So someone doesn’t become fluent in a language just by learning its rules—they have to live the language.

Similarly, scriptural understanding involves both these aspects. An analytic approach tries to isolate and apply rules in a one-to-one manner. A synthetic approach sees the scripture as a living guide where many principles may interact at once. Real life is not just about following a manual—it’s about living in alignment with the spirit behind the teachings.

Take the example of Bharat Maharaj. On one hand, the Bhagavatam (and Gita 2.40) tells us that spiritual efforts are never lost—even taking prasada once guarantees we will get a human birth in the future. On the other hand, we see Bharat Maharaj was at an elevated spiritual level, possibly at the level of bhava, and yet he became a deer. Why?

Because two rules applied simultaneously:

1. If one remembers a particular being at the time of death, one attains that form (Gita 8.6).
2. Spiritual practice protects one from falling back entirely.

So Bharat Maharaj remembered a deer at death because he had become overly attached to a deer throughout his life. As a result, he got a deer’s body. But because of his past devotion, his consciousness did not degrade—he retained his human awareness even in a deer’s form.

This is what I mean by synthetic understanding—both rules were true, and they applied together in a nuanced way.

Similarly, when scripture says that a meat-eater will go to hell, we have to understand the context. Is it referring to someone who eats meat once due to peer pressure? Or someone who eats meat three times a day for decades? Should both receive the same result? That doesn’t seem reasonable.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura offers a helpful guideline for interpreting scriptural descriptions of hell. He says the key takeaway is the principle of accountability: good actions lead to good results, and bad actions to bad results.

But karma is not a mechanical or mathematical system. It’s not like we can say, “This action equals this reaction for this duration.” The results depend on many factors, including intent, frequency, and overall consciousness.

So, when we see scriptural statements like “meat-eaters go to hell,” we should take them as indicative, not necessarily precisely predictive. Yes, meat-eating has consequences, but those consequences can vary greatly based on the rest of the person’s life.

Take Maharaj Nriga. He made one error in giving a cow to the wrong person and became a lizard for that. But afterward, he was elevated to heavenly enjoyment. So karma can manifest:

1. In hell,
2. In lower species,
3. In a human birth with suffering.

The same bad karma might be distributed across all three. For example, 30% in hell, 30% in a lower species, and 40% in human life—or even 100% in one domain, depending on the situation.

So, if someone eats meat but also performs charity, speaks truthfully, takes care of family, and helps others, all of that also shapes their destiny. We can’t reduce people to one behavior and predict their future with certainty. Just as not all meat-eaters are the same, the consequences of meat-eating aren’t identical for everyone.

This is why Yamaraja exists—to judge cases individually. If the law of karma were entirely fixed and formulaic, there’d be no need for Yamaraja. But karma is complex. It considers the whole person, their intent, and the interplay of all actions.

If we insisted on the absolute literal application of all scriptural rules, then why would Krishna say in the Gita (4.17): “Gahana karmano gatih”, the path of karma is extremely difficult to understand?

So rather than blindly insisting that scriptural statements are always literally true, or totally rejecting them as outdated, we can appreciate the principles behind them. The main principle here is accountability. Actions have consequences. But how exactly those consequences unfold is shaped by the vast complexity of real life.

Hence, we don’t go around telling people they are going to hell. That’s not our role. Instead, we can encourage ourselves and others to become more conscious and responsible for our actions.

Does that answer your question?