Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

[Tikkun Olam]

As I understand there is no universally acceptable diet in Hinduism. Although I hear vegetarianism is common, it's not mandatory. Where did the vegetarian predilection start, and is it trying to become the dominant force? Do feel like the meat-eaters are doing it wrong? I can almost imagine the intra-religious arguments now.

The only thing I know you agree on is to not eat the cow. Is there a history behind why this one thing has uniquely become the apex of some sort of universally established dietary law? As per my brief rummaging around the internet, the earliest Hindus did eat beef, so there must have been a shift in mentality at some point.

[wundermonk]

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, if you believe YHWY/ALLAH made cattle for our consumption, I have no further argument with you except that it is inhuman and immoral to kill an animal regardless of what your Torah/Quran says to satisfy your taste buds. Kosher or Hallal slaughter is still slaughter and causes unbelieveable pain to the animals undergoing slaughter.

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

[devotee]

Namaste Tikkun,


As I understand there is no universally acceptable diet in Hinduism. Although I hear vegetarianism is common, it's not mandatory. Where did the vegetarian predilection start, and is it trying to become the dominant force? Do feel like the meat-eaters are doing it wrong? I can almost imagine the intra-religious arguments now.

The only thing I know you agree on is to not eat the cow. Is there a history behind why this one thing has uniquely become the apex of some sort of universally established dietary law? As per my brief rummaging around the internet, the earliest Hindus did eat beef, so there must have been a shift in mentality at some point.

Hinduism is widely different in comparison to any of the Abrahimic religions. It is erroneous to say it qualifies to be called as "ism" ... it is better known as "Sanatan Dharma" or the Eternal Way. It has under its umbrella various sects ... apparently contradictory philosophies and yet a very strong unifying force which binds all Hindus.

It is true that Hindus prefer vegetarian. This doesn't mean that most of the Hindus are vegetarian. I don't think so. However, Vegetarianism is considered a virtue by most of the Hindus. Many Hindus are dominantly vegetarian but also consume meat sometimes. Today's Hindu society has :

a) Predominant non-sectarian Hindus : They have dietary habits what they think is right for them. They are not under any vow or binding to follow a particular way of living. Most of these Hindus are highly influenced by Vaishnavism but they are not Vaishnavas in true sense. This makes a very high percentage of Hindus.

b) Vaishnavas : This is one of very dominant sects within Hindus. They are strict vegetarians (but milk, butter etc. comes under vegetarian categaory). They stay away from any meat/poultry products (they would not even touch them or eat on table where it is being eaten by someone else).

c) Shaivas : The Shaivas too are strict vegetarians just like the Vaishnavas.

d) ShAktas : These people are of two types. One who worships "Vaishno devi' & others who worship Goddess Durga/Kaali etc. These people are small in number comparatively. In fact, non-sectarian Hindus form a great chunk of behaving as ShAktas when they worship Mother Goddess. Those who worship Mother Goddess Vaishno Devi, they won't eat meat just like the Vaishnavas. The other ShAktas not only eat meat but also offer meat/fish/poultry products to Mother Goddess.

e) Aghoris : These people can eat anything ... even part of corpses from the burial ground. For them, everything is just another form of Lord Shiva ... and therefore, there is nothing to be abhorred.

f) The Advaita Vedantins , Yogis : These people are normally vegetarians as one of the precondition for the "eight-limbs" Yoga is to abjure violence towards all beings.

However, it is not only sects which decides the dietary habits of people as most of the Hindus are actually non-sectarian. It also depends upon their caste, regions to which they belong etc. e.g. the Brahmins normally don't eat meat. However, this is also not fully true as the Brahmins from West Bengal, Assam, Orissa and some parts of Bihar eat meat or if not meat then certainly fish. The Marwaaris from Rajasthan area are normally strict vegetarians & so are the Gujaraatis. The Tamil Brahmins are very strict vegetarians.

****************

As far as cow eating is concerned, it is a big NO-NO for almost all Hindus except certain very low castes which eat dead cows meat. How and when it all started can very well be only a matter of guess. The Rig Veda which is believed to be more than even ten thousand years old (passed on to generations in poetic form orally) does mention "Cow sacrifice" but people's opinion is very widely divided on whether it meant literally sacrificing cows or it has some symbolic meaning.

Today's status is that Cow is very very sacred to almost all HIndus. Eating beef by a Hindu is almost unthinkable. :)

OM

[Kumar_Das]

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

I didnt know what the rest of the post was about but the bolded definitely begged to have your hinds served on a platter.

Homo Sapiens have been practicing cannibalism for a long time up untill very recently. Several factors led to this practice being abandoned and eventually scorned.

Do you see people outside India all entirely practicing cannibalism? Or do you hear of anyone saying they feel at times compelled to eat human flesh just because they eat meat?

The main reason why Hindus avoid eating beef is simple and it is Hindu culture to view the providing of essential nourishment as milk produced by female as something maternal. Therefore since cows give milk, they are considered in the same sentiment. And also since the substances they produce, are used in yajna. End of story. All this equating to cannibalism is a little way off.

One could say that the chinks who feed on anything that moves are more likely to resort to cannibalism. But thats because they dont draw lines to what they put in their mouth(in their natural state).

Eating red meat isnt equivalent to eating human flesh. The most reasonable thing one can say is that it is a step closer compared to pure vegetarianism because its consumption of higher mammals. But this holds very weak a thrust in pushing the proximity between meat eating and cannibalism. As the only way this should be looked at is that, being pure vegetarian would mean that the purely vegetarian staple diet is an inhibiting factor preventing anything outside the norm. Its a matter of what one is used to and their perceptions of what they find acceptable and unacceptable. The pallet that is used to the taste of blood and flesh wont find it easier to resist the same of the human variety over someone who has been a pure vegetarian all their lives. But the ultimate factor defining one's propensity to consume human flesh imo is the emotional value.

At the end of the day, eating vegetables is also the taking of life, and karmically is still negative which is why extreme yogins and practitioners of tapas relied exclusively on sunlight, water and air.

The rational Brahmins decided, if one can cause less pain as possible with their choice of what they choose for sustenance it is all the better. Plus Ayurveda also showed that it was healthier.

However to say that eating animal meat is comparable to cannibalism is some convoluted sh*t. Its as preposterous as saying a grown man having sex with a woman is up on there with pedophillia because "youre sticking your... and they are both females".

I can imagine non-Hindus who have nothing against Hinduism reading trash like yours and developing antagonism towards us. Hence my lack of patience.

[Tikkun Olam]

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, if you believe YHWY/ALLAH made cattle for our consumption, I have no further argument with you except that it is inhuman and immoral to kill an animal regardless of what your Torah/Quran says to satisfy your taste buds. Kosher or Hallal slaughter is still slaughter and causes unbelieveable pain to the animals undergoing slaughter.

If you DO believe in evolution AND eat beef, then obviously there could be some humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others. The dividing line between killing animals [a different species than homo sapiens] and those humans who have (micro)evolved to a different species than others is blurred. You may as well become a cannibal.

The morality issue is not so straight forward. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I believe humans and animals are the same. If you start to go down that path, than you could point out that animals evolved from plants, and come to the difficult conclusion that we shouldn't eat plants, either. There's clearly something more complex here.

Although we believe in physical forms being connected in some way, I would claim that humans are different from animals on the spiritual level just as animals are different from plants. This doesn't give us the right to abuse animals, but it doesn't mean eating them is the same as cannibalism.

For example, I think eating veal (which is basically a tortured baby cow) is immoral. There are indeed rules against animal cruelty in the Torah, such as letting a mother bird live if you take her eggs, and not eating the flesh of a live animal. The kosher slaughter is supposed to be painless, although you may argue that even killing something kindly is not so kind.

Anyway, I can infer from your post that vegetarianism is coming from a purely moral view. I'll not argue against that- people have different moral perspectives. Above, devotee said, "This doesn't mean that most of the Hindus are vegetarian. I don't think so. However, Vegetarianism is considered a virtue by most of the Hindus." So even a lot of Hindus will eat meat, at least sometimes.

The question I have is, why is this (even to a large extent, if not in total) culturally preferred?

Cultures all over the world eat meat. I believe there must have been a reason people started to agree eating animals was bad, and probably some sort of religious movement. Vegetarianism is the exception, not the rule.

(By the by, the rules in the Torah about which animals to eat say nothing about morals. It makes a distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals, and says that unclean animals are impure for you.)

[wundermonk]

In my post when I talked about those who believe in evolution, did I make a value judgement about morality/immorality? I did make a distinction but that was when I talked about those who DONT believe in evolution.


Homo Sapiens have been practicing cannibalism for a long time up untill very recently.

You just proved my point. If you are for eating meat then you may as well eat fellow humans.


I can imagine non-Hindus who have nothing against Hinduism reading trash like yours and developing antagonism towards us. Hence my lack of patience.

I dont really care about your patience or lack thereof. I also dont care about non-Hindus developing a perception of Hinduism based on my posts. This isnt any beauty contest. This is a message board and people are free to put forth their thoughts.

[devotee]

Anyway, I can infer from your post that vegetarianism is coming from a purely moral view.

No. It is deeper than that ! In most of the paths within Hinduism, it is believed that spiritual progress after a certain stage is impossible unless you take Ahimsa (abjure violence against all being by action, thoughts or words) and be a vegetarian.


The question I have is, why is this (even to a large extent, if not in total) culturally preferred?

Because of traditionally being against injury to any being i.e. Ahimsa being seen as important for spiritual progress. No particular timeframe can be established when this was accepted as Vedas/Vedanta are considered eternal and "apaurusheya" ( that which was always existent and that which has come as a revealation from God).

However, some of the important movements did give a thrust. Like the Bhakti Movement (14th to 17th century) which was predominantly Vaishnava & affected the Hindu society like nothing else. Before that, the Advaita-Vedanta movement & Buddhism too affected Hindu society towards becoming vegetarian. However, Ahimsa was one of the core principle within Hinduism right from the beginning ... it was prevalent in almost all sects but mostly within Yoga, Advaita & Shaivism, Vishnavism etc.

There is no Pope or Mullah dictating Hindus but the understanding is that "if you have spiritual aspirations, you must become vegetarian and adopt non-vilolence" at least after a certain stage.

OM

[Tikkun Olam]

No. It is deeper than that ! In most of the paths within Hinduism, it is believed that spiritual progress after a certain stage is impossible unless you take Ahimsa (abjure violence against all being by action, thoughts or words) and be a vegetarian.



Because of traditionally being against injury to any being i.e. Ahimsa being seen as important for spiritual progress. No particular timeframe can be established when this was accepted as Vedas/Vedanta are considered eternal and "apaurusheya" ( that which was always existent and that which has come as a revealation from God).

However, some of the important movements did give a thrust. Like the Bhakti Movement (14th to 17th century) which was predominantly Vaishnava & affected the Hindu society like nothing else. Before that, the Advaita-Vedanta movement & Buddhism too affected Hindu society towards becoming vegetarian. However, Ahimsa was one of the core principle within Hinduism right from the beginning ... it was prevalent in almost all sects but mostly within Yoga, Advaita & Shaivism, Vishnavism etc.

There is no Pope or Mullah dictating Hindus but the understanding is that "if you have spiritual aspirations, you must become vegetarian and adopt non-vilolence" at least after a certain stage.

OM

Then in that sense the Hindu sounds a lot like the Jew, actually. The only difference being you claim all animals are, for a lack of a better word, "impure" for you. We claim only certain animals (actually, most) are "impure".

[Kumar_Das]

I dont really care about your patience or lack thereof. I also dont care about non-Hindus developing a perception of Hinduism based on my posts.

For all we know you could be a non-Hindu yourself. I even I could be a non-Hindu myself. Therefore people need to ask themselves, why an abrahamic thread? Why an increase in members who profess abrahamic religions in our midst and why an increase in drawing of abrahamic religions to any given conservation and why increase of posts in defense of abrahamic religions and why increase of passiveness of Hindus when it comes to maintaining our religious dignity.


This isnt any beauty contest.

I didnt say it was about impressing people either. There are decent non-Hindus out there who might not be pro-abrahamic themselves and may have favourable opinions of Hindus. Trolls such as yourself don't represent my co-religionists and is something we will never say. Such irrationality and weak emotionalism does no good. And causes unnecessary antagonism directed towards Hindus. We are not out to impress. But we dont want to be out of our way to draw hate on us. Again troll-lol-logic.


This is a message board and people are free to put forth their thoughts.

When you say unreasonable and incendiary dribble. I will make sure I wont make your motive of tarnishing my religion easy.

[devotee]

Then in that sense the Hindu sounds a lot like the Jew, actually. The only difference being you claim all animals are, for a lack of a better word, "impure" for you. We claim only certain animals (actually, most) are "impure".

No. It is entirely different. It has nothing to do with being impure or pure. All beings are His manifestations alone. So, all beings are divine. It is related with the pain inflicted on the animals for getting meat from them. You have no right to inflict pain on any being whatsoever ... that is the idea behind not eating meat. If you kill an animal you ... the pain that an innocent being suffers accrues as bad karmas for you & becomes the cause of your sufferings which will manifest at the appropriate time either in this birth or in the births to come.

OM

[Kumar_Das]

No. It is entirely different. It has nothing to do with being impure or pure. All beings are His manifestations alone. So, all beings are divine. It is related with the pain inflicted on the animals for getting meat from them. You have no right to inflict pain on any being whatsoever ... that is the idea behind not eating meat. If you kill an animal you ... the pain that an innocent being suffers accrues as bad karmas for you & becomes the cause of your sufferings which will manifest at the appropriate time either in this birth or in the births to come.

OM

Technically plants do suffer as well. Because we shut them off (by severing them off water when plucking their roots or make them unable to breathe when we pluck their leaves), damage them in some fashion and kill them. Not to be too pedantic, but yeah.

[devotee]

Technically plants do suffer. Because you kill them.

We really don't know if the plants undergo any pains when we use them and their limbs for our purposes. Therefore, though willful killing of even plants is not approved in Hinduism ... eating herbal products is not seen as something of a hindrance to spiritual advancements.

We must have to have a sense of proportion otherwise this life won't be possible. We should not become extremists.

OM

[Kumar_Das]

I can't afford to waste more time with blundermirk so I shall leave this at here. But go figure, never heard a Hindu reason vegetarianism that way. It was always about the "not hurting creatures", or "its healthier" or "its cheaper" or "Bhagavan doesnt accept it" or "those who eat meat are more prone to sloth and disease" or other reasons of sorts. But cannibalism? That blew my nicely slick-backed hair forwards to a wild armani.

[Kumar_Das]

We really don't know if the plants undergo any pains when we use them and their limbs for our purposes. Therefore, though willful killing of even plants is not approved in Hinduism ... eating herbal products is not seen as something of a hindrance to spiritual advancements.

We must have to have a sense of proportion otherwise this life won't be possible. We should not become extremists.

OM

Agreed and ditto.

[wundermonk]

Responding to accusations I am making fun of Hinduism would provide respect to your accusation in the first place. So, lets park aside such childishness.

Here is my argument.

(1)If you eat meat of certain animals because the Quran/Torah says Allah/YHWH made such animals so you could slaughter them, and you couldnt eat some other meat because they are "impure"/Allah/YHWH expressly forbids you from eating them, etc., etc., you are a blind believer. There IS no argument possible with a person who believes Quran is the LITERAL word of God himself, yes?

Assuming you are not a blind believer in Torah/Quran, lets proceed.

(2)Chinese and Koreans eat dog meat, cat meat, pork, snakes, etc. Is there any research which establishes that they are worse of in some fashion than Muslims who avoid pork but eat beef?

(3)Assume you ARE a rationalist/atheist who believes in evolution, AND finds it ok to slaughter cattle for beef. Please explain WHY you find it ok to slaughter animals given we ourselves are a species of animals. You could say that it is ok for homo sapiens to slaughter another species of animals but it is evil to slaughter a member of your own species. In this case my rejoinder would be as following. Homo sapiens themselves could undergo speciation leading to homo sapiens A and homo sapiens B - two different species. What exactly prevents homo sapiens A from eating homo sapiens B?

(4)As pointed out, it is not at all clear that plants feel "pain" like animals do. Even if plants CAN feel pain, I would argue that in the tree of evolution, homo sapiens and plants are way way apart from each other than other animals and homo sapiens. Eating plants is therefore a much, muCH, MUCH less evil than eating animals.

Lets hear arguments against these instead of ad homs.

[Tikkun Olam]

Wundermonk, this thread was not supposed to be about my beliefs, but yours.

As for you evolution argument, it doesn't make much sense. I could claim that fish are much farther from humans, therefore it is okay to eat fish. If you see evolution as an indistinguishable flow over-time, than any place you put the moral line is arbitrary. Even land animals are millions of years apart from us. Maybe that's "enough time"? Maybe a lamb is so much farther from us than an ape, so we shouldn't eat an ape, but lamb is okay. I've never really heard anyone equate eating animals with cannibalism before, it doesn't make much sense.

[wundermonk]

My belief is very clear. Look at (4) in my previous post.

"Killing" plants <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<evil<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< killing animals. As simple as that.

[Adhvagat]

Wundermonk, if I understood correctly your argument would be more in line with a speciesism argument?

I also thought the example you gave about cannibalism was a bit extreme, but what was the reasoning behind it?

That's what I get from this argument: We, as members of the animal kingdom, familiar with how a developed nervous body feels (both pleasure and pain) should not inflict pain to any being of the same stature in no way, since agreeing to inflict pain to a fellow being should not be decided in terms of how developed the being is, because a pig (e.g.) is going to feel a cut or a broken bone the same way that we do.

I think this argument is valid but it really doesn't come across that easily, specially in a society already desensitized about animal rights.

[Tikkun Olam]

Why not eat meat from an animal that died of natural causes? Let them grow old and when you see them fallen on the ground, harvest away. You inflict zero pain that way.

[wundermonk]

Why not eat meat from an animal that died of natural causes? Let them grow old and when you see them fallen on the ground, harvest away. You inflict zero pain that way.

Please let me know which species, if any, is NOT included in the class "animals" above and why?

You had earlier said:


I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I believe humans and animals are the same.

Hmm...actually, if you DO believe in evolution, humans are just another type of animals. No escape route available there, sorry. Plus, remember per evolution, there is no reason to expect humans constitute a single homogeneous genus/species. Homo Sapiens could easily speciate into "Homo Sapiens A" and "Homo Sapiens B". They may already have. Folks living in Antartica may probably have speciated differently than those living in the hot deserts of Africa.


The kosher slaughter is supposed to be painless,

Sorry. No escape route available there either. Read this (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rebuttals_to_Zakir_Naik#Is_Halal_slaughter_painful.3F).

[Tikkun Olam]

Please let me know which species, if any, is NOT included in the class "animals" above and why?

What are you asking here? You want me to define what an "animal" is? I think that's pretty clear- the same definition given in primary school biology. My point was, would you have a moral issue with eating an animal if it died naturally and you inflicted it with no pain? If the axiomatic moral pretext is such to cause no pain, than that is a legitimate question.


Hmm...actually, if you DO believe in evolution, humans are just another type of animals. No escape route available there, sorry. Plus, remember per evolution, there is no reason to expect humans constitute a single homogeneous genus/species. Homo Sapiens could easily speciate into "Homo Sapiens A" and "Homo Sapiens B". They may already have. Folks living in Antartica may probably have speciated differently than those living in the hot deserts of Africa.Not true at all. I said before, I believe in a shared physical origin with all things, not a spiritual one. It is a common belief, I think. It is true that we as humans have physical ties to other living things- that is undeniable science. The spiritual question is not. I believe human beings have been endowed with a certain kind of soul, different from other animals. All things, animate and inanimate, have some kind of soul, but are different from each other. Under those assumptions, there is a clear distinction made between men and monkeys, for example.

This was observed in the Talmud. They welcomed a bunch of primates into their towns and tested to see if they were a type of human. The benchmark they used was to see if they could teach the primate to consciously do a mitzvot (a good deed). They concluded that although the primates would, say, give money to a homeless person if you demonstrated it, they had no consciousness of why it was "good". The monkey was simply following the motions. This was also observed in an unfortunate incident. One man took a large blade and moved it back and forth across his neck, than placed the blade on the ground. The monkey picked up the blade, and while smiling, copied the motion, slaughtering himself across the neck. (They then concluded that the other primates were not human).

This type of distinction, the type of consciousness that human beings are endowed with, is rather unique and is a legitimate distinction. You seem to be jumping to conclusions pretty quickly without asking for a different perspective. Claiming that there are different kinds of humans is not relevant, we are all the same species. A German Shepard, a Chihuahua, and a Grey Wolf are all the same species, Canis lupus, even though they look and seem very different.




I am much more interested in the people who claim eating meat is bad because you are causing an animal harm than I am in someone trying to claim it is somehow like cannibalism because men and sheep had a common ancestor 10 million years ago.

[devotee]

Why not eat meat from an animal that died of natural causes? Let them grow old and when you see them fallen on the ground, harvest away. You inflict zero pain that way.

You appear to be more knowledgeable than all Hindus put together ! I think we know spirituality better than the Jews. No thanks for your suggestion. However, if you are ready to think beyond Torah etc. then please think if meat eating is necessary at all ?

OM

[Tikkun Olam]

You appear to be more knowledgeable than all Hindus put together ! I think we know spirituality better than the Jews. No thanks for your suggestion. However, if you are ready to think beyond Torah etc. then please think if meat eating is necessary at all ?

OM

Actually, what I suggested is not allowed by the Torah (eating an animal that died of natural causes). It was a question that came out of a logical extension of your response- that you are not to cause harm/pain. A blanket statement that you "know spirituality better" is a ridiculous claim. On this forum there is a lot of criticism of Christians and other groups for claiming that they know "the only answer", so I would hope you wouldn't go down that same route. The Jews do have similar concepts- the Torah says we are not allowed to eat the BLOOD of any animal for the very reason that the soul is in the blood, and it's impure to consume the animal's soul. If you replaced "blood" with "meat" it sounds similar to your belief. I don't know how you could claim abstaining from the meat versus abstaining from the blood for spiritual reasons is any more "right".

Eating meat is not necessary to survive. We believe that God loves us and wants us to be happy, so that abstaining from pleasurable things (such as meat) is not recommended unless there's a good reason not to.

I can respect you not eating meat for spiritual reasons or because you don't think it's worth it to harm animals, but don't claim that your way is the only acceptable spiritual and moral way.

[wundermonk]

What are you asking here? You want me to define what an "animal" is? I think that's pretty clear- the same definition given in primary school biology.

You know very well what I wanted you to include in "animals". Yet you avoided answering the question.

In any case, you cannot believe in evolution and at the same time not include homo sapiens within the "animal" classification.

Hence your question was NOT worth answering because you yourself wouldnt admit to answering your question in the affirmative. Hence, it is futile on your part to set me up with a false premise which you YOURSELF dont agree with.

[Tikkun Olam]

You know very well what I wanted you to include in "animals". Yet you avoided answering the question.

In any case, you cannot believe in evolution and at the same time not include homo sapiens within the "animal" classification.

Hence your question was NOT worth answering because you yourself wouldnt admit to answering your question in the affirmative. Hence, it is futile on your part to set me up with a false premise which you YOURSELF dont agree with.

Ah, okay. Humans are in the animal kingdom. Just like humans and plants are together in the eukaryote domain. So? Neither label has much meaning, with the only level in taxonomy that has any real impact is the species level.

[devotee]

Actually, what I suggested is not allowed by the Torah (eating an animal that died of natural causes). It was a question that came out of a logical extension of your response- that you are not to cause harm/pain. A blanket statement that you "know spirituality better" is a ridiculous claim. On this forum there is a lot of criticism of Christians and other groups for claiming that they know "the only answer", so I would hope you wouldn't go down that same route. The Jews do have similar concepts- the Torah says we are not allowed to eat the BLOOD of any animal for the very reason that the soul is in the blood, and it's impure to consume the animal's soul. If you replaced "blood" with "meat" it sounds similar to your belief. I don't know how you could claim abstaining from the meat versus abstaining from the blood for spiritual reasons is any more "right".

Eating meat is not necessary to survive. We believe that God loves us and wants us to be happy, so that abstaining from pleasurable things (such as meat) is not recommended unless there's a good reason not to.

I can respect you not eating meat for spiritual reasons or because you don't think it's worth it to harm animals, but don't claim that your way is the only acceptable spiritual and moral way.

Your suggestion itself is disgusting. Can't you see ? That is why this response.

... and my claim that we understand spirituality better is not a tall claim. It is the fact. I am not questioning your beliefs ... can you see ... why ? It is not because your way is better or whatever you think. It because it hardly matters in what way you worship God in duality. Are you in a position to think on these lines ? No. Because you can never think beyond what is written in your books.

In another post you have questioned the historical existence of Jesus. What is the historical proof that Moses existed ? ... or even if he existed, all things that he said was not a craetion of his own figment of imagination ? I am not saying to denigrate Abrahimic religions. I am trying to make you see the larger picture. Did you ever think that if Laws of Moses was really from God why it was given to only certain group of people and not made public to the entire mankind ? Why should God differentiate between meat of one animal or the other animal ? Why can't God feel the pains of hapless animals which have been declared as "fit for eating" ... or why did He give them the ability too feel pain at all ? What was their fault ? Can such God be Called God in real sense ? You will have no logical answers. Yet we believe that your way is good in its own way.

This all is a matter of faith and it works in whatever way you want to believe it. However, there are laws of nature which must be respected.

OM

[wundermonk]

@Tikkun:

Your position is riddled with self-contradictions. You cannot believe in evolution and STILL believe that humans are endowed with anything special which animals are not.

[Tikkun Olam]

Your suggestion itself is disgusting. Can't you see ? That is why this response.

... and my claim that we understand spirituality better is not a tall claim. It is the fact. I am not questioning your beliefs ... can you see ... why ? It is not because your way is better or whatever you think. It because it hardly matters in what way you worship God in duality. Are you in a position to think on these lines ? No. Because you can never think beyond what is written in your books.

In another post you have questioned the historical existence of Jesus. What is the historical proof that Moses existed ? ... or even if he existed, all things that he said was not a craetion of his own figment of imagination ? I am not saying to denigrate Abrahimic religions. I am trying to make you see the larger picture. Did you ever think that if Laws of Moses was really from God why it was given to only certain group of people and not made public to the entire mankind ? Why should God differentiate between meat of one animal or the other animal ? Why can't God feel the pains of hapless animals which have been declared as "fit for eating" ... or why did He give them the ability too feel pain at all ? What was their fault ? Can such God be Called God in real sense ? You will have no logical answers. Yet we believe that your way is good in its own way.

This all is a matter of faith and it works in whatever way you want to believe it. However, there are laws of nature which must be respected.

OM

Claiming a "fact" about spirituality doesn't make sense. It's no longer spiritual.

I certainly did not question the historicity of Jesus. I quoted sources that talked about him and his environment, of course he was historical. And I don't know why you are turning a thread about dietary habits in your religion into a general thread about mine. I didn't come here to talk about my religion, I came here to learn about yours. I did get some good answers from people, but if you really have some unanswered questions about me, go here;
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=66&page=4
I will answer you there- not here.

[Tikkun Olam]

@Tikkun:

Your position is riddled with self-contradictions. You cannot believe in evolution and STILL believe that humans are endowed with anything special which animals are not.

Of course you can, that's a major part of evolution. That would be like saying you can't believe in evolution and believe that animals are endowed with anything special that plants are not.

[Eastern Mind]

Where did the vegetarian predilection start, and is it trying to become the dominant force?


Vannakkam: In my view vegetarianism is just the natural action from the belief in ahimsa, a philosophical concept. Saint Tiruvalluvar made very clear statements about its merits 2200 years back.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Why not eat meat from an animal that died of natural causes? Let them grow old and when you see them fallen on the ground, harvest away. You inflict zero pain that way.

Except the pain you inflict on your self.

praṇām

[Jainarayan]

Namaste EM and all.


Vannakkam: In my view vegetarianism is just the natural action from the belief in ahimsa

^ And that's all it is in my view also... non-violence to the fullest extent it's possible. A take on Occam's Razor: "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."

[Tikkun Olam]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Except the pain you inflict on your self.

praṇām

What pain would that be? Health reasons, physical pain? Or some sort of bad karma?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: My goodness! Surely we aren't scavengers like vultures. Eating the flesh of any creature is disgusting enough, let alone one that has died. I see vultures ransacking the corpse of a poor creature on some desolate highway somewhere on some desert. Man has a higher calling than that, surely.:(

Aum Namasivaya

[devotee]

Claiming a "fact" about spirituality doesn't make sense. It's no longer spiritual.

Forget it dear ! You will slowly understand what I am saying and why if you stay & keep reading on this forum.


And I don't know why you are turning a thread about dietary habits in your religion into a general thread about mine. I didn't come here to talk about my religion, I came here to learn about yours. I did get some good answers from people, but if you really have some unanswered questions about me, go here;
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=66&page=4
I will answer you there- not here.

I explained to you what you asked for. But then you wanted to know "why" and also started suggesting "why not this way" (a disgusting way !) ... then your intentions cannot be seen so holy. Right ?

Again, I have same curiosity to know about your beliefs as you have for mine. So, what is the harm if I keep asking what & why you think so ? The questions I asked in my earlier post is about this thread alone. So, why should it be discussed in any other thread ?

OM

[devotee]

Except the pain you inflict on your self.


Correct ! :)

OM

[wundermonk]

That's what I get from this argument: We, as members of the animal kingdom, familiar with how a developed nervous body feels (both pleasure and pain) should not inflict pain to any being of the same stature in no way, since agreeing to inflict pain to a fellow being should not be decided in terms of how developed the being is, because a pig (e.g.) is going to feel a cut or a broken bone the same way that we do.

I think this argument is valid but it really doesn't come across that easily, specially in a society already desensitized about animal rights.

Hi Pietro:

You have indeed understood my argument. It is depressing that animal rights are give the short shrift in our society these days. :(

In any case, I find it disingenuous that Muslims and Jews try to educate Hindus about our dietary habits when they DONT eat pork because their holy book says so. So, the only reason they eat beef is because their book says so and the reason they dont eat pork is because their holy book says so.

Where's the reasoning that justifies this position? Hindus are not going to be swayed by something just because YHWH/Allah say so.

[Kumar_Das]

Where's the reasoning that justifies this position? Hindus are not going to be swayed by something just because YHWH/Allah say so.

I dont care what abrahamics do, or why do. Its their problem.

Hinduism isnt exclusively theology. On one hand, we believe that since God is Transcendent and therefore outside the sphere of subjective human emotions, experiences and rationale and, being "Most High" - what He lays down to be followed is above and beyond whatever we think of His demands and as His slaves we must follow them. We have to rely upon religion to determine our morality.

On the otherhand, philosophically we believe in a morality as something that even goes beyond religion in a theistic sense. Which is why we Hindus do not worship the deities of the abrahamic books. Because we find it morally corrupt to venerate such dieties.

[wundermonk]

I dont care what abrahamics do, or why do. Its their problem.

You miss the purport of my argument. It is disingenuous for a Jew/Muslim to talk about nonvegetarian diet to Hindus when they take recourse to scriptures to NOT eat pork. Case dismissed. Dont you ever notice? All the Muslims/Jews ALWAYS ask us about beef. They never ask us why we dont eat pork. Why? See this OP as well. Thats what I call disingenuous and sinister.


being "Most High" - what He lays down to be followed is above and beyond whatever we think of His demands and as His slaves we must follow them. We have to rely upon religion to determine our morality.

As far as I am concerned, there is NO single objective morality within Hinduism. There is nothing like the 10 commandments. The basis is provided by Vedas but the rest need to be figured out via reasoning from time to time as society changes. I made a post on this here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=72482&postcount=4).

[wundermonk]

Which is why we Hindus do not worship the deities of the abrahamic books. Because we find it morally corrupt to venerate such dieties.

Nonsense. The reason why Hindus dont worship Allah or Jesus or Yahweh is that they are jealous Gods. They are exclusive Gods. To be a Muslim/Xian you NEED TO ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that non-Muslims/non-Xian respectively are hell bound! There is no other way than theirs. Any other way is the highway to hell.

Hindus arent used to such an exclusivist mindset which makes them hate everyone who does NOT follow the same path as they do towards the divine and rightfully find it abhorrent.

Hindus also find the concept of eternal torture dispensed by the Abrahamic God in hell disgusting. A benevolent omniscient omnipotent entity should judge a person by his actions and deeds. Instead the Abrahamic concept of fire-spewing God who is going to crush you because you didnt worship him in the right way stands no chance in front of the Hindu conception of the Divine.

[Sahasranama]

Do we really need to argue why we don't worship the abrahamic god? Why waste time with such irrelevant discussions?

[Tikkun Olam]

Do we really need to argue why we don't worship the abrahamic god? Why waste time with such irrelevant discussions?

That was my point earlier- there's a whole section in this forum for that. I don't know why one topic has to turn into everything Abraham just because it was start by a child of Abraham...

I must say, this is one of the reasons it's so unfortunate that there's 250 Christians and Muslims in the world for every Jew, because people start thinking our beliefs are the same as there's. I can tell you that's not true. I've said before that we do NOT believe in Hell. Abraham never believed in Hell. I posted this in another thread;

Well, I must say that's not my God either.

I think it's cowardly to tell someone you will go to Hell if you don't believe what they do. Eternal damnation is something you can't be shown wrong about. It happens in a far away plane of existence that no one can see. Jews believe that the good and evil are rewarded and punished right here on earth, in their daily lives, for all to see. I think that takes a bit more chutzpah to say, because it leaves you exposed for people to look at if it worked against you.

Jewish law has always accepted other people and religions, saying otherwise is just not true. To stay kind of relevant with the dietary concerns, here is what Jewish law says after talking about the kosher diet and all the things that cannot be eaten;

You may give it to the stranger who is in your cities, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. (Deut 14:21)

@wundermonk, you know nothing about my people, so stop acting like you do.

[Sahasranama]

That was my point earlier- there's a whole section in this forum for that. I don't know why one topic has to turn into everything Abraham just because it was start by a child of Abraham...

I must say, this is one of the reasons it's so unfortunate that there's 250 Christians and Muslims in the world for every Jew, because people start thinking our beliefs are the same as there's. I can tell you that's not true. I've said before that we do NOT believe in Hell. Abraham never believed in Hell. I posted this in another thread;
.

Fascinating...

(not)

[wundermonk]

@wundermonk, you know nothing about my people, so stop acting like you do.

I used to have AND still have a good deal of respect for Jews who I have met in my life [although Abrahamic theology/philosophy sucks]. I will not let that impression be poisoned by your attempts on Hindu Dharma Forums.

This way to the egress...

[Tikkun Olam]

Fascinating...

(not)

Wundermonk just talked about how he doesn't like the concept of Hell and eternal damnation and people having to believe what you do to be saved. And I agreed, and clarified that so I wouldn't be confused with such people. What's wrong with that?

@Wundermonk: what "attempts"? I feel like I'm being attacked just for my existence here. You're throwing a bunch of beliefs on my that I don't actually have.

[Sahasranama]

I also don't like the concept of hell.

I also don't like people dying of hunger in developping countries.

I also don't like a bad economy or diseases like aids and cancer.

[Tikkun Olam]

I also don't like the concept of hell.

I also don't like people dying of hunger in developping countries.

I also don't like a bad economy or diseases like aids and cancer.

Line 1 is not so universally excepted as Line 2 and 3. Roughly half of the people in the world DO believe in Hell.

[Sahasranama]

I said nothing about believe, but just because I don't like something, doesn't make it false. I don't like abrahamics posting on Hindu forums, but yet here you are.

[Mana]

I said nothing about believe, but just because I don't like something, doesn't make it false. I don't like abrahamics posting on Hindu forums, but yet here you are.

I am lost for words. How rude you really are is quite astounding ...

[Miyazaki]

Hindus arent used to such an exclusivist mindset which makes them hate everyone who does NOT follow the same path as they do towards the divine and rightfully find it abhorrent.


Any Hindu should not hate anyone.

Krishna has told us that anyone who is benevolent to all living entities is dear to Him. :)

[Kumar_Das]

Nonsense. The reason why Hindus dont worship Allah or Jesus or Yahweh is that they are jealous Gods. They are exclusive Gods. To be a Muslim/Xian you NEED TO ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that non-Muslims/non-Xian respectively are hell bound! There is no other way than theirs. Any other way is the highway to hell.

Alot of Hindus are exclusivists. Historically there have been Hindus who denied even other Gods of Hinduism as non-existent. Bet you did not know that. Shaivites and Vaishnavites have been fighting with each other, sometimes physically, long before your abrahamic religions even came about. Just look at this forum itself. People disagree tooth and nail with each other at times, out of the belief that their doctrine offers the Truth more accurately.

Thats not the reason why we reject abrahamic religions. The inclusivist rejecting the exclusivist is himself exclusive to the exclusivists.

We deny mohammad because we find certain things he has done unacceptable and therefore find it hard to believe him a "prophet". We deny jesus because we find some of the things he said in the bible objectionable. We find the concept of salvation through the death and resurrection unacceptable and cheap. We deny abraham because we find his destruction of idols which is seen in abrahamism as the ultimate sign of enlightedness instead as spiritual intrusion. We disagree that his act is of profoundness because its equivalent to someone with spiritual knowledge physically beating someone without the same knowledge as him due to him lacking knowledge. If the point is to spread knowledge, there are more gracious methods. The whole point of a prophet is to teach people and let them arrive at realization by themselves and not use force in this regard and remove what you find is an incorrect practice that they do by yourself. We accept the grim order of things in this universe. But we find it morally unacceptable to venerate deities that sanction severe torture and destruction of innocents.

Buddhists are exclusivist beyond any measure. We don't have a problem with them just because of that.


Hindus arent used to such an exclusivist mindset which makes them hate everyone who does NOT follow the same path as they do towards the divine and rightfully find it abhorrent.

Do you have problem constructing lucid sentences? Just asking.

[charitra]

" Alot of Hindus are exclusivists "

disagree with 'a lot of ' characterization. Not that Iam aware of.

A miniscule insignificant part of hindu population has those intolerant denominational vasanas. Overwhelming majority believe in all sampradayas, by that I mean they dont denigrate others' sampradayas. They do respect those sampradayas they dont adher to.
Once a hindu immerses in Bhakti and devotional life, spending lot of time in puja activity and all, then he/she adopts one or the other sampradayas. The rituals are deity specific and the branching off becomes inevitable. It is merely an act of immersion not exclusivism. Namaste

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

All this talk about why Hindus don't worship Jesus/Yahweh/Allah and reject the Abrahamic religons......

How about because they are not true? Because they are completely made up? Because pretty much the entire Abrahamic worldview goes against our Dharmic worldview? Because their scriptures are entirely man-made and contradicts our scriptures which contain the eternal truths of the universe?......Besides, as Sahasranama said, this is completely irrelevant.

Jai Sri Ram