For this you will have to read Sankhya Darshan yourself
you will find similarities between teachings of Jainism and Kapil Muni
For this you will have to read Sankhya Darshan yourself
you will find similarities between teachings of Jainism and Kapil Muni
i dont want details of sankhya or jainism . i just want to undestand some brief points of simlarity and the way the two systems are related(as u r saying) . a few sentences of explantion would do . im not asking too much .
surely you know many such examples , and consequently should have no major problem to satisfy the curious demands of this ignorant student , as you have personally completed through sankhya and jain siddhanta(as ur previous posts suggest) !!
waiting ....
Now I am no expert in Hinduism nor have I read Valamki's version in the original Sanskrit. I doubt you have too. However the one version I have from C. Rajagopalachari a companion to Ghandhi said that he did hunt for meat because he is a Ksastriya and as a Ksastriya he he is not restricted to the law of non-violence. How could he be his clan is the warrior clan.
"My spiritual father is Swami Vivekananda" Canibus
This is news because most of people think Hinduism is about peace and nature and living in harmony with animals. This maybe negative news but its news because it shows a side of Hinduism people are not familiar with. But dont assume everything from the western media is negative. Look at the post I made in the "I am a Hindu" section "Hinduism and Modernity" that story was pretty positive.
Yet everyone here and elsewhere think that its the big bad Western Media showing their culture in a negative light. True as a student of the media, I am sometimes embarrass at home some cultures are displayed but if it upsets you so much do something about it create your own media.
As a journalist I am instructed to get both sides of an issue if you feel only one-side of hinduism is being represented and its tainting the image of Hinduism call the editor, blog, write a letter to the editor. It is the responsibility of the Journalist to seek out contrary positions on controversial issues however if they cannot find any then you cant neccessarily blame them can you?
"My spiritual father is Swami Vivekananda" Canibus
Namaskar Sagefrakrobatik Ji,
First of all, after much thought and contemplation, I have decided long ago I will not create threads or posts here in HDF anymore.
But since you have quoted my statement, I have to elaborate my point of view once again. If not, my statement will look biased.THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST.
I am sorry, if you feel my statements seemed harsh towards the media. I am just stating my point of view. You see, there are certain quarters of people will try their best to showcase certain issues in a particular way in order to prove their point. This happens in the media all the time. Ethics in journalism are not followed by people nowadays, as news that are sensational and could create controversy can be an execellent news material-to make money.
Hinduism has been a target of riducule and attacks by various quarters since long time ago. This is also a fact. Not only western media, media based on some specific religion too try to show Hinduism in bad light.
People generally are more interested to know abt the so-called bad stuff about any matter. All confusions arose because of this. Sometimes what people see, hear and read in the media is not true or maybe slightly true. So this half-baked news about Hinduism will make people come into a wrong conclusion, because their premise of what Hinduism is are flawed.
Coming back to the matter. Animal sacrifice has been practiced in some ways in Hinduism. But there's a purpose behind it. I can elaborate more on this matter, but it's not proper, as there are more senior and knowledgeable people here that can give you a precise picture of why the so-called animal sacrife being done.
You can PM me, if you feel you need to ask more questions. This will be my last post here in HDF. Namaste to you and all.
Kshama
HI KSHAMA ,
why last post ?!
you not letting anyone go so soon .
Straight from the Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Chapter 52, Sloka 102:
tau tatra hatvā caturo mahāmṛgān; varāham ṛśyaṃ pṛṣataṃ mahārurum
ādāya medhyaṃ tvaritaṃ bubhukṣitau; vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaspatim
“There those two, [Rama and Laksmana,] having killed four large animals: a boar, an antelope, a spotted antelope and an antelope [of some other type], the two hungry ones, having quickly received/taken the pure [part of the animals], they went to a tree to rest in the dark [nighttime].”
The parts in brackets were added by me to clarify the sentence.
I have studied Sanskrit for a few years now and there is no way I can see to translate this in a way that doesn’t have them eating meat as it says that they kill the animals and that they are hungry and take the pure parts of the meat.
Manusmrti 5.27-56 says clearly that there are times when you may eat meat and that,
“there is no fault in eating meat, drinking liquor, or in having sex; that is the natural activity of creatures. Abstaining from such activity, however, brings great rewards.”
So obviously meat eating was accepted at some point and at 5.35 it says,
“If a man refuses to eat meat after he has been ritually commissioned according to rule, after death he will become an animal for twenty-one lifetimes.”
I myself am a strict vegetarian but I still think that it is clear that meat eating was once allowed for brahmans at least under the certain conditions. Manu 5.39-40 says:
“The Self-existent One himself created domestic animals for sacrifice, and the sacrifice is for the prosperity of this whole world. Within the sacrifice, therefore, killing is not killing. When plants, domestic animals, trees, beasts, and birds die for the sake of the sacrifice, they will in turn earn superior births.”
This seems to deal with the seeming contradiction with ahimsa. If you are killing for sacrifice then you are doing a service and not harm to the animals and so how could you be going against ahimsa?
The Mahabharata has discussion on this subject and it seems that it was tradition and was considered sacred. Book 3 Section 207.
"The sacred fire is fond of animal food,' this saying has come down to us. And at sacrifices animals are invariably killed by regenerate Brahmanas, and these animals being purged of sin, by incantation of hymns, go to heaven."
Last edited by NayaSurya; 19 April 2010 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Forgive the ramblings...did not realize the entirety of this post was older.
The topic of vegetarianism has been beaten to death on HDF, pun not-intended!
With regards to what you have written, yes, meat-eating and engaging in hedonistic pleasures are not antithetical to nature, yet, when ones takes on the responsibility of sAdhanA, it is imperative to control one's senses, emotions, desires, and wants. Thus, abstinence is a requirement for those along that path. And, in those days, most sAdhakAs were Brahmins and thus happened to be vegetarians. The funny thing is, it is not against the sVadharmA of sUdras, VaiSyAs, and KSatriyAs to engage in wordly affairs, of which meat-eating is one.
However, to use the past as an excuse to continue one's bad habits, that is, if one is along the path of sAdhanA, is ridiculous to say the least. And furthermore, there weren't any "organic" vegetables available in the previous yuga (during Rama's reign) so meat-eating must have been quite rampant. Nonetheless, ahimsa is still a fundamental core of Hinduism. The difference of course is the "INTENTIONAL" causing of harm mentally, physically, or emotionally.
What is the problem if some Hindus still do animal sacrifice? why should anyone be shocked? How many are shocked when millions of animals are sacrificed by muslims?
Of course, meat is not prohibited to Hindus. But many do shun it. Show me a single jew/xian/muslim who shuns meat.
Most of Hindus repudiate animal sacrifice. Show me a single muslim who opposes sacrifice on Id?
Last edited by rcscwc; 07 September 2010 at 11:01 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks