Dietary agreements/disagreements in Hinduism

[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/sho...hp?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