Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

  1. #11

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Kumar_Das View Post
    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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #13

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    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.

  4. #14

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    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.
    Last edited by wundermonk; 09 October 2011 at 04:27 AM.

  6. #16

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

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

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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    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.

  9. #19

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikkun Olam View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. khalsa rejects
    By GURSIKH in forum Sikhism
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 26 March 2012, 02:28 PM
  2. A Need for a United Hindu Voice
    By Surya Deva in forum Politics - Current Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13 September 2010, 09:27 AM
  3. Neo-Hinduism
    By keshava in forum Hot Topics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25 March 2010, 10:25 PM
  4. Teaching others about Hinduism
    By Ramakrishna in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 27 February 2010, 10:35 PM
  5. Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
    By saidevo in forum Christianity
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 12 May 2008, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •