Why Hindus Don't Eat Meat (Scientific Reasons)
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> There is overwhelming scientific, medical evidence against the advisability of
> eating beef and other meat -- and in favor of plant-based foods:
>
>
>
>
>
> Spectrum: What about fish?
>
> Neal Barnard: There are several things about fish. I
> don't eat fish, and there are many reasons why I don't.
What about fish?
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Maharaj'ji answer.
What about fish?
Do you consider fish to be a vegetable, because it does not walk, does
not make any sound, etc. ?
Ha, ha, ha!
Maharaj'ji if you now have the guts come out and answer or come up with
a suitable reference showing the problems of eating fish.
Subho.
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> In article <33B3EE...@research.umbc.edu> ,
> "Dr. S. Mozumdar" <smo...@research.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >> Maharaj'ji if you now have the guts come out and answer or come up with
>
> I regularly post the following excerpts -- please read about a major problem
> associated with eating fish:
>
> [ Subject: Forget Fish (Re: Source for Freshwater Fish...) ]
> [ From: j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) ]
> [ Date: July 6, 1997 ]
> [ Message-Id: <FDu3xQ9z...@mantra.com> ]
>
> Forget Eating Fish
>
> The least likely of all places in the world to find an
> uncontaminated fish is in the United States. We have
> the dubious distinction of being the world's largest
> producer of pesticides. We use 1.1 billion pounds of
> pesticides a year -- about five pounds for every member
> of the population. This amounts to 30% of the entire
> world's use. You may be wondering if any fish are safe.
> Even for research purposes, it is impossible now for
> scientists to find fish anywhere in U.S. waters which do
> not carry toxic chemicals in their flesh.
As always, Jai Maharaj chooses to example the extreme in his favor. Lake
Michigan is hardly the source of worldwide fish consumption. The
pesticide use quoted is largely used in the farming of *grain and
vegetables*. We may safely assume, then(following the good "doctor"s
logic), that the United States is the least likely place to find
uncontaminated grain and vegetables, and that therefore these are to be
avoided at all costs.
The question, however, that Mr. Maharaj neatly dances around, is whether
fish, as a component of diet, is condemned or approved by the scientific
community. The answer is, of course, that fish is a recommended addition
to our diet. However, that flies in the face of the good "doctor"'s
agenda, and therefore he examples contaminated fish. Need I remind him
that grain and vegetables are as much susceptible to chemical
contamination as any other product, and that we are asking about health
benefits/risks vis-a-vis fish versus other food?
prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Shamim A. Khandekar
> Prem Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > There is overwhelming scientific, medical evidence against the
advisability of
> Maharaj'ji answer.
> What about fish?
>
> Do you consider fish to be a vegetable, because it does not walk, does
> not make any sound, etc. ?
>
> Ha, ha, ha!
> Maharaj'ji if you now have the guts come out and answer or come up with
> a suitable reference showing the problems of eating fish.
>
> Subho.
-Very well written. I think Maharaj'ji might be cosidering fish as 'sea
vegetable'. It is strange in the west, instead of admitting that 'beef'
is forbidden in Hinduism, they want to hide under the of label of
'vegeterian'!!!
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
forbidden in Hinduism.
It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
My advice - simply ignore them.
As far as vegeterianism goes, if you are a die hard vegeterian eat
uncooked brocolli, carrots, green leafy vegetables, boiled spinach,
beans and peas, etc. Do not eat those greasy shaak-paneer, malai-kofta,
etc. if you are that health conscious. They contain a lot of
cholesterol and fat.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Why Hindus Don't Eat Meat (Scientific Reasons)???
Because they want to starve and die hungry.
They will not eat the "cows" and the "cows" are going to eat all their
vegetables.
They cannot drink milk either because that means depriving the calf.
So they want to suck their God-given thumb and die hungry.
My prediction is if this goes on India will soon become a land of the
Cows. They will be strong and tough while Indian men and women will be
lean and thin.
Good, soon we are going to send cows to the olympics. Hopefully they
will do better than our athletes of today.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Why Maharaj'ji Does Not Eat (Cow)Meat??? (The real Scientific Reason).
Because he wants to grow some real strong Bulls so that he can have good
Bull-fights with them.
Good for us. Even though we are going to have some real, tough Bullshit
around us, we will at least be spared from the Bullshits of Maharaj'ji.
Subho.
Uday Reddy
Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>
> Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
> forbidden in Hinduism.
> It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
> Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
> Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
> history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
> trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
> Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
not add to those.
Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
doubt about it.
On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
<blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy wrote:
> Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
> South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
To clarify, "Hindus" in this paragraph refers to "nonvegetarian Hindus."
Obviously, for vegetarian Hindus, the question of eating beef doesn't
arise at all.
Uday Reddy
Javed A Khan
In article <33BAAC...@cs.uiuc.edu> Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
>D...@research.umbc.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sal.cs.uiuc.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m)
>Xref: news-in.cig.mot.com soc.culture.bangladesh:63620 soc.culture.bengali:49229 soc.culture.indian:255417 rec.food.veg:64757 soc.culture.pakistan:162385 soc.culture.indian.karnataka:2476
>
>Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>>
>> Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
>> forbidden in Hinduism.
>> It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
>> Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
>> Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
>> history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
>> trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
>> Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
>
>Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
>the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
>arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
>not add to those.
>
>Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
>Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
>are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
>is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
>is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
>doubt about it.
>
>On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
><blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
>
>thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
>they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
>plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
>South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
>tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
Those hindus who dont eat meat or at least beef, do consider it a cardinal
sin and look down upon others who do eat beef. While they may not have a
concept of "going to hell or eternal damnation" for the sin of killing a cow
its not less serious, as far as they are concerned. The veneration of the cow
is reason enough for them to require that others not kill the cow for beef
or any other reason. It does not make them more look any better than muslims
who would impose their set of morals on others.
--Javed.
>
>Uday Reddy
--
Uday Reddy
Javed A Khan wrote:
>
> Those hindus who dont eat meat or at least beef, do consider it a cardinal
> sin and look down upon others who do eat beef. While they may not have a
> concept of "going to hell or eternal damnation" for the sin of killing a cow
> its not less serious, as far as they are concerned. The veneration of the cow
> is reason enough for them to require that others not kill the cow for beef
> or any other reason. It does not make them more look any better than muslims
> who would impose their set of morals on others.
All human beings try to impose their morals on others. That is how
society is built.
Uday Reddy
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> >
> > Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
> > forbidden in Hinduism.
> > It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
> > Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
> > Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
> > history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
> > trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
> > Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
>
> Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
> the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
> arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
> not add to those.
>
This is absolutely BS.
First of all there is nothing like "true" Hinduism and "real" Hinduism.
Hinduism is a way of life to me. In that sense it is not even a religion
to me.
The Hinduism which is practised in the South of India is quite different
from the Hinduism which we see in the North.
In Bengal (may be because of Tantrik influence) the brand of Hinduism
which we practise is based on Shakti puja. A lot of traditional Bengalis
have a picture of Kali in their homes. In Kali puja (as many of us know)
sacrificing animals is a ritual. In olden days we used to sacrifice
buffalos and now a days we sacrifice goats. If you do not know this I
will request you to go to Calcutta and visit Kalighat.
You will be amazed to see how many goats are sacrificed every day.
What do you think we do with those sacrificed goats and buffalo.
Needless to say we eat them as prasad (or prasadam).
So vegeterianism was and never will be a part of the Bengali brand of
Hinduism.
Even our Brahmins eat meat with a lot of enthusiasm.
When guests come to our home we serve them with the best of the foods we
have and that includes the head of a fish (Mach'er Muda). This is a
tradition not only among the Hindus but also among the Muslims of
Bengal.
Rice and Fish is our staple diet and we are proud about it.
> Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> Hindus.
That significant section of the polpulation is ignorant.
India has a large number of illiterate people who are ignorant and has a
large number of literate people who are ignorant too like Maharaj'ji.
They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> doubt about it.
>
That is BS.
They do not eat meat because either they cannot afford to eat meat or
they are miserly.
Amongst Indians I think the Bengalis spend the most on food.
Food of a typical North Indian is Roti and Achar and that of a typical
South Indian is Dosa, Idli, Sambar and Rasam (occasionaly mixed with a
tinge or a handfull of "gunpowder").
I know a lot of vegetarian North Indian folks who do not eat meat at
home but when they come to my place and I serve them meat they gladly
eat it.After eating, they tell me do not let my wife or mother know
about it.
What hypocrits?
If you say so that is true Hinduism.
They do not eat meat at home because they want to save their purse.
> On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
> <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
>
> Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do.
Yes, only if they know that someone has had beef they ostracize them and
when they come to their home they spray cow shit and cow urine around
them to make themselves "pavitra" (or pure). This I guess is a very
civilized and scientific thing to do!!
I agree with you when you say that it is cultural rather than religious
thing. I am told in Kerala a lot of Hindus eat beef and they have no
problems about it.
Hinduism is not a religion. It is a way of life.
Cows in
> South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>
> Uday Reddy
I can agree with you on this. But I will never like to impose my love
for cows on another person. If cow is dear to me so is goat and by your
logic if I can relish goat meat why can't I relish cow meat.
Yes, if you say I should not eat beef or mutton because they are red
meat and contain a lot of cholesterol then I can see your point. But
here again what is bad for me may not be bad for my two year old son.
Indians should and must feed their athletes well (if needed even with
beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
and they will live happily for a hundred years.
As far as cows are concerned tend them, love them, drink their milk and
eat them also if you feel like.
To lead a life bound by lists of do's and don'ts is the worst kind of
life one can lead.
Be free, enjoy and let people enjoy. Do not keep preaching people what
they ought to do.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Javed A Khan wrote:
>
> In article <33BAAC...@cs.uiuc.edu> Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >D...@research.umbc.edu>
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: sal.cs.uiuc.edu
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m)
> >Xref: news-in.cig.mot.com soc.culture.bangladesh:63620 soc.culture.bengali:49229 soc.culture.indian:255417 rec.food.veg:64757 soc.culture.pakistan:162385 soc.culture.indian.karnataka:2476
> >
> >>
> >> Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
> >> forbidden in Hinduism.
> >> It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
> >> Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
> >> Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
> >> history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
> >> trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
> >> Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
> >
> >Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
> >the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
> >arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
> >not add to those.
> >
> >are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> >is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> >is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> >doubt about it.
> >
> ><blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
> >
> >Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> >thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> >they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> >South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> >tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>
> sin and look down upon others who do eat beef. While they may not have a
> concept of "going to hell or eternal damnation" for the sin of killing a cow
> its not less serious, as far as they are concerned. The veneration of the cow
> is reason enough for them to require that others not kill the cow for beef
> or any other reason. It does not make them more look any better than muslims
> who would impose their set of morals on others.
>
>
> >
> >Uday Reddy
>
> --
Yes, it considered as a sin. But you can be purified if you drink some
cow urine or cow shit.
There is nothing like eternal damnation in our religion. All it says is
if you eat beef and forget to eat cow shit and cow urine to finish your
meal you will have to be born again to be tortured by people like
Maharaj'ji and his friends.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Javed A Khan wrote:
> >
> > Those hindus who dont eat meat or at least beef, do consider it a cardinal
> > sin and look down upon others who do eat beef. While they may not have a
> > concept of "going to hell or eternal damnation" for the sin of killing a cow
> > its not less serious, as far as they are concerned. The veneration of the cow
> > is reason enough for them to require that others not kill the cow for beef
> > or any other reason. It does not make them more look any better than muslims
> > who would impose their set of morals on others.
>
> society is built.
>
> Uday Reddy
That is how a society is destroyed too.
Example: Pre-World War II Germany and Japan.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> > Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> > thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> > they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> > plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
> > South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> > tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>
> Obviously, for vegetarian Hindus, the question of eating beef doesn't
> arise at all.
>
> Uday Reddy
I do not know what you mean by these labels "vegetarian Hindu" and
"non-vegeterian Hindu".
Do you think a person like me who is a strict non-vegeterian Hindu (by
your classification) can transform to a vegeterian Hindu in this birth
by simply renouncing meat or do I need to be born in a vegeterian family
to be a real vegeterian Hindu?
Subho.
Bhaskar Manda
"Dr. S. Mozumdar" <smo...@research.umbc.edu> writes:
>Uday Reddy wrote:
>> All human beings try to impose their morals on others. That is how
>> society is built.
>That is how a society is destroyed too.
>Example: Pre-World War II Germany and Japan.
I'm glad that you can get by with a simple view of history. Then
again you seem to be getting by with your naive views of Hinduism,
and vegetarianism; so I thinkwe should all stop trying to educate
you. Afterall what you don't know can't hurt you. Right?
-bhaskar
Sikhivahan
This is so thought-provoking I must express my two-paisa worth.
Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
> > the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
> > arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
> > not add to those.
> >
>
> This is absolutely BS.
> First of all there is nothing like "true" Hinduism and "real" Hinduism.
Funny, doc, I thought you're kinda disputing what
Prof Reddy said.
> Hinduism is a way of life to me. In that sense it is not even a religion
> to me.
> The Hinduism which is practised in the South of India is quite different
> from the Hinduism which we see in the North.
> In Bengal (may be because of Tantrik influence) the brand of Hinduism
> which we practise is based on Shakti puja. A lot of traditional Bengalis
> have a picture of Kali in their homes. In Kali puja (as many of us know)
> sacrificing animals is a ritual. In olden days we used to sacrifice
> buffalos and now a days we sacrifice goats. If you do not know this I
> will request you to go to Calcutta and visit Kalighat.
Well again I thought down south Kaliamman is fed Idli, Sambar,
Rasam and Dosa. I see I'm not mistaken.
Maybe again, I am.
> Rice and Fish is our staple diet and we are proud about it.
Pleased to know. I submit that Rice and Fish also
ought to feel proud about the honour bestowed on them by
cognoscenti bengali.
>
> > Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> > Hindus.
>
> That significant section of the polpulation is ignorant.
> India has a large number of illiterate people who are ignorant and has a
> large number of literate people who are ignorant too like Maharaj'ji.
>
True, doc, India is full of ignoscenti.
> They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> > are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> > is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> > is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> > doubt about it.
> >
>
> That is BS.
> They do not eat meat because either they cannot afford to eat meat or
> they are miserly.
I'm extremely sorry to note that you, too, can be wrong, doc.
I know at least one family that'sn't into even egg, and they
come from a "meat-eating caste". Son was classmate and said like
dad believed in not harming life, human or otherwise. Irrational, true,
but what can we do: India is full of ignoscenti.
Now, just to placate you: I personally believe that man be not
cannibal, only just that, and eat what he pleases. But illiteratti
try to propagate their irrational beliefs on this free medium -
they say they got rights - so put them out of their misery, put
them in your kill file or whatever. After all, how far can one
stretch tolerance.
> Amongst Indians I think the Bengalis spend the most on food.
> Food of a typical North Indian is Roti and Achar and that of a typical
> South Indian is Dosa, Idli, Sambar and Rasam (occasionaly mixed with a
> tinge or a handfull of "gunpowder").
One of these days I plan to learn the Art of Stating Truth Without
Batting An Eyelid. From you, of course, doc. This morning when I
was taking my ritual swim in Sambar it occured to me that I may
try rice for a change.
> I know a lot of vegetarian North Indian folks who do not eat meat at
> home but when they come to my place and I serve them meat they gladly
> eat it.After eating, they tell me do not let my wife or mother know
> about it.
> What hypocrits?
See? Hyprocritti!
> Indians should and must feed their athletes well (if needed even with
> beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
> Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
> and they will live happily for a hundred years.
No. I say, once their medal-producing age is over, let them loose on
usenet!
>
> As far as cows are concerned tend them, love them, drink their milk and
> eat them also if you feel like.
> To lead a life bound by lists of do's and don'ts is the worst kind of
> life one can lead.
> Be free, enjoy and let people enjoy. Do not keep preaching people what
> they ought to do.
So long, doc. I'm off to watch this cartoon strip starring talking pots
and listening kettles.
>
> Subho.
--
Sikhivahan
customary disclaimers apply.
Sunil Gokhale
> Indians should and must feed their athletes well (if needed even with
> beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
> Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
> and they will live happily for a hundred years.
I wonder where people get the idea that meat is a MUST for strength,
power, energy, stamina etc. Has anybody done any reliable research?
If not, I would take it as a superstition and a hoax perpetrated by
meat industries.
What pray is there in meat that can not be found in vegetarian diet
supplemented with milk products? I am sure that Shivaji's soldiers
who founded a kingdom and defeated an emperor (with meat eating armies)
were too poor to eat meat regularly.
Even our maharaj has posted many an article giving names of big
time athletes who are/were vegetarians. (Before anyone says that
they are strong because they take steroids; pause. The same
argument can be made about almost any athlete these days).
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Sunil Gokhale wrote:
>
> In article <5pgq24$j...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
> Sunil Gokhale <sung...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Indians should and must feed their athletes well (if needed even with
> >> beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
> >> Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
> >> and they will live happily for a hundred years.
> >
> >
> >I wonder where people get the idea that meat is a MUST for strength,
> >power, energy, stamina etc. Has anybody done any reliable research?
> >If not, I would take it as a superstition and a hoax perpetrated by
> >meat industries.
> >
> >
I guess if the traditional BJP'walas can propagate their school of
thought, why not the meat industry.
Sunil'ji, not everything needs research (especially, if it is an
established fact).
> >What pray is there in meat that can not be found in vegetarian diet
> >supplemented with milk products? I am sure that Shivaji's soldiers
> >who founded a kingdom and defeated an emperor (with meat eating armies)
> >were too poor to eat meat regularly.
> >
> >
There lies the irony of life.
You want to be vegeterian because you do not want to inflict pain on the
animals but yet you take pleasure in killing other people.
This is just like the DTC bus driver, who wanted to save a cow on the
street and so turned his bus and killed a little child walking on the
pavement in Delhi.
Really, I have to learn of lot hypocritical tactics from you guys.
> >Even our maharaj has posted many an article giving names of big
> >time athletes who are/were vegetarians. (Before anyone says that
> >they are strong because they take steroids; pause. The same
> >argument can be made about almost any athlete these days).
>
Please take some time and list all the medal winners and big time
athletes and see how many of them were vegeterians and how many were
non-vegeterians.
> I should have added that some of the strongest, biggest and fastest
> mammals (elephant, rhino, hippo, horse, bison, deer) eat nothing but
> ghas-ghoos.
> -------------------
So next time send a team to the olympics of the elephants, rhinos,
hippos, horses, bisons and deers.
Incidentally if there is a fight between a tiger and any of the above
species, the result is ......
I know, you are going to tell me a tiger is a pucca vegeterian!!
(especially the ones in India).
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Bhaskar Manda wrote:
>
> "Dr. S. Mozumdar" <smo...@research.umbc.edu> writes:
> >Uday Reddy wrote:
> >> All human beings try to impose their morals on others. That is how
> >> society is built.
>
> >That is how a society is destroyed too.
> >Example: Pre-World War II Germany and Japan.
>
> I'm glad that you can get by with a simple view of history.
If history tells you to follow the course of dictatorship, follow it.
Results can be predicted.
Then
> again you seem to be getting by with your naive views of Hinduism,
> and vegetarianism;
There is nothing so complicated about Hinduism. That is what has been
preached by Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swamy Vivekananda. Do take time
to read their works before coming down and preaching people what they
ought to do.
so I thinkwe should all stop trying to educate
> you.
Yes and do not try to project such an image of Hinduism to people who
know nothing about it.
Afterall what you don't know can't hurt you. Right?
>
> -bhaskar
Right and how can you preach something about which you do not know
anything.
Subho.
Sunil Gokhale
In article <33BBFF...@research.umbc.edu>,
>>
>> In article <5pgq24$j...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
>> Sunil Gokhale <sung...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >I wonder where people get the idea that meat is a MUST for strength,
>> >power, energy, stamina etc. Has anybody done any reliable research?
>> >If not, I would take it as a superstition and a hoax perpetrated by
>> >meat industries.
>> >
>> >
>
>I guess if the traditional BJP'walas can propagate their school of
>thought, why not the meat industry.
Aha! So you do agree that meat-vadis are as much fond of gobar-gas
as the 'manu-vadis', don't you?
>Sunil'ji, not everything needs research (especially, if it is an
>established fact).
-------------
Isn't that what the Pope told Galelio?
Established by whom? when? how? Blood-letting as a cure was an
'established fact' too.
>> >What pray is there in meat that can not be found in vegetarian diet
>> >supplemented with milk products? I am sure that Shivaji's soldiers
>> >who founded a kingdom and defeated an emperor (with meat eating armies)
>> >were too poor to eat meat regularly.
>> >
>> >
>There lies the irony of life.
>You want to be vegeterian because you do not want to inflict pain on the
>animals but yet you take pleasure in killing other people.
>This is just like the DTC bus driver, who wanted to save a cow on the
>street and so turned his bus and killed a little child walking on the
>pavement in Delhi.
>Really, I have to learn of lot hypocritical tactics from you guys.
You should get rid of that 'Dr.' from your username. Don't give bad
name to the concept of a 'learned person'. If and why I am a vegetarian
is as relevant to the current question (meat necessary for medals) as
whether you wear glasses or not.
Please answer my question. What is there in the meat that is not there
in plant based food supplemented by milk? If you don't have the answer,
have the intellectual honesty to say so. At this moment your position is
not much different from 'Ganesha drinking milk crowd'.
Remember, I am just asking pertinent questions challenging your
positions. All you have to do is to produce answers in support of your
claims. I am neither asking anybody to be a vegetaraian nor passing
moral judgement on people who are non-vegetarians. I know that
vegetarians are quite capable of saving animals but hurting humans.
I am simply challenging hocus-pocus by meat-vadis. If you had said that
meat is tasty, I would not have argued with you. I am arguing with you
because of your assertion that eating ghas-ghoos can not win medals.
>> >Even our maharaj has posted many an article giving names of big
>> >time athletes who are/were vegetarians. (Before anyone says that
>> >they are strong because they take steroids; pause. The same
>> >argument can be made about almost any athlete these days).
>>
>
>
>Please take some time and list all the medal winners and big time
>athletes and see how many of them were vegeterians and how many were
>non-vegeterians.
Most of the humanity being non-vegetarian, they would outnumber
vegetarians in most activities, from sports to crime. By making lists,
I can also 'prove' that meat-eating makes more criminals. Do you want
this kind of logic? My point is that meat is not a MUST to win medals.
To prove my point, it is enough to show that many atheletes are in fact
vegetarians.
ps: there is not much irony in Shivaji's poor 'vegetarian' soldiers
winning battles. According to Durant, Ceaser's army was practically on
a vegetarian diet too; although I have to admit I don't know what his
opponents ate.
Sunil Gokhale
>> beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
>> Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
>> and they will live happily for a hundred years.
>
>
>power, energy, stamina etc. Has anybody done any reliable research?
>If not, I would take it as a superstition and a hoax perpetrated by
>meat industries.
>
>
>supplemented with milk products? I am sure that Shivaji's soldiers
>who founded a kingdom and defeated an emperor (with meat eating armies)
>were too poor to eat meat regularly.
>
>
>time athletes who are/were vegetarians. (Before anyone says that
>they are strong because they take steroids; pause. The same
>argument can be made about almost any athlete these days).
Uday Reddy
Sunil Gokhale wrote:
>
> Remember, I am just asking pertinent questions challenging your
> positions. All you have to do is to produce answers in support of your
> claims. I am neither asking anybody to be a vegetaraian nor passing
> moral judgement on people who are non-vegetarians. I know that
> vegetarians are quite capable of saving animals but hurting humans.
Ah, Sunil! Remember that we are now talking to a "true Hindu" here.
All the pertinent questions have already been answered in the doctoral
dissertation of Dr. Mazumdar. We must now sit up and listen, and stop
wasting his time with silly questions. Don't you ever learn?
Uday Reddy
Zaigham Kazmi
I guess I will agree with most of what Uday said. I don't think that not
eating meat has anything to do with religion. I read somewhere that when
muslims came to India then many hindus stopped eating meat and even
onion. It was just to distinguish themselves from the muslims. If I am
wrong at that point I would like to hear.
I haven't seen any explicit reference to meat eating by hindus in
pre-historic period or the period before Islamic invasion. BUT if you
read the Indian history you will find a lot of references to hunting.
Even Bhagvan Ram had gone to hunt deer when Ravana took away Seeta. And
a lot more.
If hunting was allowed then the very purpose of not eating meat ie.
Jeev-hatya (killing of animals) is killed.
So I guess eating or not eating meat should be more of a personal matter
or at maximum cultural than being religious.
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> >
> > Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
> > forbidden in Hinduism.
> > It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
> > Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
> > Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
> > history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
> > trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
> > Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
>
> Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
> the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
> arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
> not add to those.
>
> Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> doubt about it.
>
> On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
> <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
>
> Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
> South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>
> Uday Reddy
--
Zaigham A. Kazmi
email: kza...@neusun.agen.okstate.edu
********Why is the word abbreviation so long ************
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>
> What Dr. S. Mozumdar does not seem to understand is that the animal-eating
> habit adversely affects others too, and robs all of us of the precious
> resources, also destroyning our environment. The environmental terrorism
> meat-eaters inflict needs to be reduced and stopped by making better and
> healthier food choices.
Well, Jai, explain to the general assemblage(in a manner of speaking)
how raising cattle for dairy products and as draft animals, and then
maintaining them beyond their useful years is in any way less damaging
to the environment, and less of a drain on food resources(and by
extension other resources as well) than animals raised purely for food?
And while you're at it, why not explain also how consumption of dairy
products is not adverse to one's health(don't forget to include our
venerated "ghee")?
And when you're done explaining that, illustrate to us how India's
environment has been conserved in it's pristinely verdant condition
because Indians are not major consumers of meat? I'd like you to finger
the "environmental terrorist" at work there.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Supratic Gupta
Uday Reddy wrote:
> Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> doubt about it.
BY the way dear Uday,
Can we come down to percentage? What part of Hindu people are
vegiterian?
To your surprise, mazority is infact non-vegiterian.
Just being from a Higher caste Hindu family(probably), does not give you
the
the right to paint Vegiterianism as the true Hinduisim.
>
> On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
> <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
>
> Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
> South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
Is there any thing in any Hindu text that says against
egges/fish/chicken/or
any other animal?
>
> Uday Reddy
Shariq Ahmed Tariq
Hey everybody I have seen people eschew the virtues of being vegetarian.
I personally believe that being vegetarian can lead to a more
healthy lifestyle if you know what to eat and what not to
eat. Raw fruits and vegetables is good but vegetarian foods
soaking in ghee or oil are not. Our desi diets are not exactly
healthy and that is why you see a whole lot of our people
who are too thin or too fat especially after they cross 30.
On the other hand look at Chinese or Japanese people who
on average are quite fit and healthy and don't sport huge
paunches.
Regards,
Shaq
Uday Reddy
Zaigham Kazmi wrote:
>
> I guess I will agree with most of what Uday said. I don't think that not
> eating meat has anything to do with religion. I read somewhere that when
> muslims came to India then many hindus stopped eating meat and even
> onion. It was just to distinguish themselves from the muslims. If I am
> wrong at that point I would like to hear.
> I haven't seen any explicit reference to meat eating by hindus in
> pre-historic period or the period before Islamic invasion. BUT if you
> read the Indian history you will find a lot of references to hunting.
> Even Bhagvan Ram had gone to hunt deer when Ravana took away Seeta. And
> a lot more.
> If hunting was allowed then the very purpose of not eating meat ie.
> Jeev-hatya (killing of animals) is killed.
> So I guess eating or not eating meat should be more of a personal matter
> or at maximum cultural than being religious.
Thanks for the agreement, Mr. Kazmi. But, what you seem to be agreeing
with is different from what I said. So, let me clarify. I made two
points:
(1) For those Hindus that are vegetarian, vegetarianism is a
*religious* maxim (not merely cultural).
(2) For those Hindus that are non-vegetarian, revoltion to beef-eating
is a *cultural* factor (not a religious factor). As opposed to (1),
this is not a clear-cut judgement and I do expect that some Hindus to
disagree with it. In another thread, I have also pointed out that
drawing the line between religion and culture is difficult.
[The second point is not central to this thread. So, to avoid worsening
what is already a confusing situation, I will only talk about point (1)
in this post.]
To say that vegetarianism is a religious principle is not to say that
all Hindus believe in it or that all Hindus follow it. But, there is a
"significant section" of Hindus (mainly Brahmins) that follow it. And,
for those people, meat-eating is haram (to use an Islamic term) or
non-Satthvic (to use a Sanskrit term) or impure.
Fortunately, the vegetarian Hindus didn't banish the remaining
meat-eating Hindus to hell. They let the other folks keep their ways
even though they maintained that vegetarianism was superior to
non-vegetarian diet. In particular, Kshatriya or warrier castes (e.g.
Rama) were always allowed non-vegetarian diet. Here we see some of the
positive role played by the caste system in accommodating ethnic and
religious diversity within Hinduism.
It is not known how vegetarianism made its way into Hinduism. The
theory that you mention, viz., that Hindus became vegetarian to
distinguish themselves from Muslims, is not believable. Vegetarianism
certainly existed before then. The most plausible theory is that
vegetarianism came into prominence with Buddha's teachings.
Uday Reddy
Uday Reddy
Supratic Gupta wrote:
>
> BY the way dear Uday,
> Can we come down to percentage? What part of Hindu people are
> vegiterian?
> To your surprise, mazority is infact non-vegiterian.
>
> Just being from a Higher caste Hindu family(probably), does not give you
> the
> the right to paint Vegiterianism as the true Hinduisim.
Percentages do not make any difference, Supratic. The question is
really whether those Hindus that are vegetarian are vegetarian for
religious reasons. The answer is undoubtedly "yes." If you don't
believe me, ask them.
I don't think this has anything to do with "higherness" of caste. I am
familiar with vegetarianism among "lower" caste communities too. It is
more a question of whether a community/caste accepted vegetarianism as
their credo. Some did and some didn't.
I hope you are not getting carried away by Dr. Maharaj's provocative
title: "why Hindus don't eat meat." I don't think Dr. Maharaj believes
that all Hindus are vegetarian. We all know that is not a fact.
> Is there any thing in any Hindu text that says against
> egges/fish/chicken/or
> any other animal?
I am afraid you will have to ask a vegetarian Hindu about that.
Uday Reddy
Flash
Just a side footnote...
Tis' my understanding, many Hindus do not eat onions (and the Krishnas
also will not eat garlic) because these foods excite the second chakra
(the so-called "sex" chakra).
As a further interesting (?) note, many yogis will not eat mushrooms
as they'd like to only eat foods that are in an "up" cycle... and
mushrooms being simply a process of decay; they will not eat them.
Lastly, Rastas will similarly not eat mushrooms.
All the best,
Flash
P.S. Love when in religious discourse, people show their knowledge by
calling others "idiots". :)
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 00:23:43 -0700, Zaigham Kazmi
<kza...@neusun.agen.okstate.edu> wrote:
>I guess I will agree with most of what Uday said. I don't think that not
>eating meat has anything to do with religion. I read somewhere that when
>muslims came to India then many hindus stopped eating meat and even
>onion. It was just to distinguish themselves from the muslims. If I am
>wrong at that point I would like to hear.
>I haven't seen any explicit reference to meat eating by hindus in
>pre-historic period or the period before Islamic invasion. BUT if you
>read the Indian history you will find a lot of references to hunting.
>Even Bhagvan Ram had gone to hunt deer when Ravana took away Seeta. And
>a lot more.
>If hunting was allowed then the very purpose of not eating meat ie.
>Jeev-hatya (killing of animals) is killed.
>So I guess eating or not eating meat should be more of a personal matter
>or at maximum cultural than being religious.
>
>Uday Reddy wrote:
>>
>> Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
>> > forbidden in Hinduism.
>> > It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
>> > Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
>> > Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
>> > history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
>> > trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
>> > Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
>>
>> Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
>> the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
>> arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
>> not add to those.
>>
>> Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
>> Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
>> are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
>> is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
>> is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
>> doubt about it.
>>
>> On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
>> <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
>>
>> Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
>> thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
>> they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
>> plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
>> South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
>> tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>>
Zaigham Kazmi
Well Mr. Uday, I can't say that all hindus used to eat meat before
muslims came and then suddenly everyone stopped eating meat. I would
agree that Brahmins were not into meat-eating, at least so does it seem.
What I meant is that meat-eating was in practice in ancient India, at
least hunting. I guess that preachers started stressing on veg &
non-veg stuff after Muslims came into India.
Obviously Budha's teaching had a great influence.
Anyway, to me it is a matter of personal preference so I don't want to
waste mine & others time on this topic :).
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Zaigham Kazmi wrote:
> >
> > I guess I will agree with most of what Uday said. I don't think that not
> > eating meat has anything to do with religion. I read somewhere that when
> > muslims came to India then many hindus stopped eating meat and even
> > onion. It was just to distinguish themselves from the muslims. If I am
> > wrong at that point I would like to hear.
> > I haven't seen any explicit reference to meat eating by hindus in
> > pre-historic period or the period before Islamic invasion. BUT if you
> > read the Indian history you will find a lot of references to hunting.
> > Even Bhagvan Ram had gone to hunt deer when Ravana took away Seeta. And
> > a lot more.
> > If hunting was allowed then the very purpose of not eating meat ie.
> > Jeev-hatya (killing of animals) is killed.
> > So I guess eating or not eating meat should be more of a personal matter
> > or at maximum cultural than being religious.
>
Soumitra Bose
One does find the explicit citation of veal eating in RgVed .Veal was
considered to be one of the most delicious food .
Chaitanya was once asked the same question by Daulat Kazi (who was the
chief justice during Gauradhipati Hussain Shah.Daulat Kazi was a very
honoured Sanskrit and Puran scholar and was officiating for the state
even in Scriptural matters. He fished out all the references of beef and
veal eating .Chaitanya said "yes, it was being eaten in those days , but
now in the Kaliyug one should not eat beef at all"(Chaitanya
Charitamrita) .It has been historically proved that beef was banished
out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
I can relate such a fact by looking at present bangladesh .The bovine
population has gone down so much so that practically every cow/bull/ has
to be imported from the border districts of India .The border districts
of Tripura and Wbengal is having a thriving business exporting
cows/bulls over to bangladesh .Of Course only those cows/bulls are
allowed to cross over which stopped producing any milk or become
incapable of carrying the yoke of the plough .This phenomenon has gone
upto such an height that the bengalee muslims of Wbengal have now
substituted their veal/beef by buffallo meat (it is much cheaper) and
then selling those cows/bulls across the border.
The compulsion is pure economic again.
Till very recently Hindus in bengal did not eat chicken , they could
only eat goat meat (that too without onions and garlics , but only to be
cooked with ginger).Pork was never eaten by Hindus or muslims , after
the colonisation pork eating has actually caught up with the anglicized
population , the aboriginals always had pork as a regular diet .
Soumitra Bose
Supratic Gupta wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> > Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> > Hindus. They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> > are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> > is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> > is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> > doubt about it.
>
> Can we come down to percentage? What part of Hindu people are
> vegiterian?
> To your surprise, mazority is infact non-vegiterian.
>
> Just being from a Higher caste Hindu family(probably), does not give you
> the
> the right to paint Vegiterianism as the true Hinduisim.
>
> >
> > <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
> >
> > Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> > thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> > they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> > plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do. Cows in
> > South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> > tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
>
> egges/fish/chicken/or
> any other animal?
>
> >
I am not sure Uday "painted" vegetarianism as "true" Hinduism...Wasn't
it Uday who actually pointed out the variety of eating habits among
Hindus???
Mohammad Javed Khan
Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >
> > In article <33BC28...@cs.uiuc.edu>,
> > this and related message threads. Old habits are hard to break for some
> > people and the destructive flesh-eating habit is no exception. These animal
> > killers/eaters are trying their best to defend the terrorism against their own
> > health and the environment but is is obviously not working. More and more
> > people are seeing the light and changing their lifestyle for the better.
> >
> > Jai Maharaj
> > http://www.flex.com/~jai <<<*** 17,500 links to my posts
> > Om Shanti
> >
> > Copyright (C) 1997 Mantra Corporation - All Rights Reserved.
>
> You're right!!! We terrorists are killing the environment , and the
> vegetarians who are flattening the forest lands and arable lands and
> then planting small shrubs (a two dimensional cultivation instead of
> using the heights) only to pluck them all after a couple of months ,are
> not doing any damage whatsoever. The whole of eastern bengal is having
> this problem because of this flat-land cultivation syndrome.The danger
> is eating up the vertical flora so much that not a single typhoon or
> hurricane could be stopped by the natural barricade in Sundarbans .
> One kind of deforestation is done by flat-land cultivation.
> Those aboriginals who had perfect balance in the environment maintained
> , kept our environment for several milleniums.Now in the last three
> centuries we have screwed it up. Any kind of flat-land cultivation is
> much much harmfull than meat eating habits .Animals cannot live only in
> flat land environment , they need vertical flora and forests.Flat-land
> kills all the forests, this pattern is the main cause of soil erosion
> too, as a soil cannot be held tight by small bushes .
> Vegetarians do depend mostly on legumes and leafy vegetables .kegumes
> typically are produced as roots , so one has to pluck the plant out ,
> not allowing it to rot and allow natural fertilizing .It ruines the
> ground , which has to be re-ploughed .After a couple of years the
> top-soil does not retain its original holding capacity.Artificial
> fertilizers are then imperative and thenceforth they become the land
> becomes a captive of the artificial stuff.These were the reasons for a
> near drought condition in Purulia for seven consecutive years in the
> 80s.As a matter of fact in most developed countries goats are banned
> because they eat the roots .No other animal whose meat we eat, does that
> .All the aboriginal people on earth do eat meat and they are still
> preserving the environment the best .
I think it is not very good to go to any extreme (one is not eating any
kind of vegetables and the other one is not eating any meat; please do
not bring any religion here as I am not trying to interpret it in the
light of hinduism).
I believe that it is very necessary for us to eat vegetables and fruits
regularly. Many of us forget it. So, we should eat them along with
meat (for those who eat meat) and fish.
And if you are worrying about deforestation, it could be prevented
without changing our habits of meat-eating.
Mohammad Javed Khan
Uday Reddy
Soumitra Bose wrote:
> It has been historically proved that beef was banished
> out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
Hi Soumitra, this is good to know. This should establish once and for
all the economical reasons behind the beef ban. Can you give us a
citation?
Uday
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> On July 7, 1997,
> in article <5pr0m7$6...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> ,
> sung...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Sunil Gokhale) wrote:
> > Just a simple question re. eating meat:
> > How many meat-eaters would still eat meat if, in order to eat meat they
> > THEMSELVES had to kill that animal with knife in their own hands, process
> > the carcass and prepare the dish? (This is a hypothetical question, so
> > reasons such as 'there won't be time to do all that' are not expected. I
> > am assuming enough time available). Has anybody ever taken such a survey?
> > - Sunil Gokhale
>
> I recall that a very similar question was posed in rec.food.veg and
> possibly sci.med.nutrition a few years ago and that no person came forward
> to write thatthey would commit the atrocity personally.
I have and I would again, if I needed to. As to it being an atrocity, it
is no more so(given the right perpective) than harvesting millions of
live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a fruit
tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit. It is certainly kinder than
forcing an aged, starving, skinny bull to walk in circles in blistering
heat to pull water out of a well to irrigate a crop. I have personally
witnessed a pair of "brahmin" bulls driven in such a circle until one
collapsed, and was then flogged until it was lying in it's own excreta.
It died soon after. Look in your own backyard before you accuse others
of cruelty to animals.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> Many pure vegetarians do not eat root vegetables
> and seeds because of the life or life potential contained in them.
>
> Jai Maharaj
Following that logic, what else is eliminated from the "pure" vegetarian
diet? Let's see: onions, potatoes, tomatos, peas, garlic, ginger,
cumminseed, coriander seed, allspice, rice, wheat, millets, beans,
coconuts, yams........is there Indian vegetarian cuisine that survives
the elimination of these(and more) ingredients? And how about fruit such
as apples, oranges, pomegranates, mangos and other Indian favorites? Mr.
Maharaj carries his arguments to a ridiculous extreme.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
lop...@interport.net
I saw Mrs. Gandhi on TV in America before she died, and she repeated the
same story. She said that because of a drought, poor people were killing
the cattle to eat, so the Brahmins couldn't allow this, so they passed a
proscription against eating beef- on the pain of death. This edict has
stuck because of the power of the ruling class [and caste].
In article <33C1C0...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> > It has been historically proved that beef was banished
> > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
>
Sunil Gokhale
Hello Prem, I think on this one you are flogging Jai unnecessarily.
He HIMSELF is not advocating it, he is just stating a practice.
Althought IMHO his info. is a little inaccurate. Many people (eg. devout
Jains) do not eat 'vegetables' if eating them -theoretically- involves
killing of a plant. That is why they do not eat potato, onion etc. But
I don't any person or group that shuns grains or fruits. Because at least
theoretically you can obtain the grain and fruit without killing the
whole plant.
I know of a few (VERY FEW!) who survived as bachelor students in US without
eating potato and the like.
Soumitra Bose
Mohammad Javed Khan wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > >
Every activity on earth is by killing some one else .That is the
position of modern day anthropology. Historically life and death has
been found to be moving in circles .Life out of death and death out of
life ......Please read Joseph Campbell,,,,,,the whole world have been
balanced and it would be .....before spewing adjectives a little bit of
reading does not harm .....
Soumitra Bose
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
>
> all the economical reasons behind the beef ban. Can you give us a
> citation?
>
> Uday
I read it from the research papers by historians like Gautam Bhadra,Ram
sharan PAndey . they came out in a compilation by partha chatterjee
after the BM demolition.
Mohammad Javed Khan
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
>
> all the economical reasons behind the beef ban. Can you give us a
> citation?
>
> Uday
Then should the cow population be allowed to grow ? Or cows will remain
a very lucrative export commodity to Bangladesh (Indian cows are happyly
slaughtered in bangladesh during Eid-ul-Azha)?
Javed
Mohammad Javed Khan
Who disagreed with you on that? And what is your point Mr. Soumitra
Bose?
Javed
Soumitra Bose
position (which bengalees have at their diet level anyway) has kept us
alive and it will .Not exclusively vegetarian , not exclusively meat
eating , not exclusively fish eating .
Soumitra Bose
Mohammad Javed Khan wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
> >
> > Soumitra Bose wrote:
> >
> > > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
> >
> > all the economical reasons behind the beef ban. Can you give us a
> > citation?
> >
> > Uday
>
> Then should the cow population be allowed to grow ? Or cows will remain
> a very lucrative export commodity to Bangladesh (Indian cows are happyly
> slaughtered in bangladesh during Eid-ul-Azha)?
>
> Javed
That is economic sense .Wbengal govt actually has a cow/beef incubating
firm in Haringhata to cater the needs of bangladesh . We are making
money very fast just because the BD govt and the "enterpreneurs" there
are not interested production and self-reliance .We are thankful to that
kind of an attitude .
Soumitra Bose
Sunil Gokhale wrote:
>
> In article <ECznz...@nonexistent.com>, Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> wrote:
> >Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >>
So can you have rice and wheat without uprooting the plant ??? LEts find
it out .....
Mohammad Javed Khan
Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> I was commenting on the "extremeness" of the retort made .A balanced
> position (which bengalees have at their diet level anyway) has kept us
> alive and it will .Not exclusively vegetarian , not exclusively meat
> eating , not exclusively fish eating .
I agree with you that we should have a balanced diet and not only eat
meat but also vegetables and fish. Javed
Kam
Prem Thomas wrote on killing animals:
> I have and I would again,
Well thats just you isn't it.
> if I needed to.
Yes, for a lamb curry.
> As to it being an atrocity, it
> is no more so(given the right perpective)
Yes, it must be fun being hacked to pieces.
> than harvesting millions of
> live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a > fruit
> tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit.
Well, when they are pulled out do they squeal like the lamb for your
curry.
> It is certainly kinder than
> forcing an aged, starving, skinny bull to walk in circles in > blistering
> heat to pull water out of a well to irrigate a crop.
Well by your own admission these bulls are just like plants, so its no
worse right ?
> I have personally
> witnessed a pair of "brahmin" bulls driven in such a circle until one
> collapsed, and was then flogged until it was lying in it's own > excreta It died soon after.
Well this is extremely sad, however if he had been well fed, he would
have become your dinner.
> Look in your own backyard before you accuse others
> of cruelty to animals.
Ditto.
Soumitra Bose
mark prieto wrote:
>
> Uday Reddy wrote:
> >
> > Soumitra Bose wrote:
> >
> > > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
> >
> > all the economical reasons behind the beef ban. Can you give us a
> > citation?
> > Uday
> human diet: if one eats the cow, its use as "food" is limited to only a
> couple of days, if it lives, one can (quite ignorantly) consume its milk
> for many years. Thus, a live cow feeds many more people much longer
> than a dead one. A living cow produces long-term "free" "food".
> However, the people who invented this inappropriate gambit were totally
> ignorant of the severe diseases caused by humans' eating the milk of
> another species. This information has been available in increasing
> quantities for only a few decades. Once again, 'traditional' practices
> are proven to be disastrous.
> The other severe problems they didn't consider are:
>
> 1> cows eat everything green and cause desertification and, ultimately,
> famine.
> 2> the burning of dung for fuel removes the minerals from supporting
> food crops, thus undermining any agricultural efforts.
> 3> using an animal to convert plant protein to animal protein wastes
> ~90% of the available protein.
>
> The Indian experience has shown that ecocide and the resulting human
> starvation can easily be accomplished with ignorance and very simple
> 'technology': the cutting edge, domestic animals, fire, and plant crops
> that are inappropriate for the human species to eat.
> The starvation endemic to India, and other so-called undeveloped
> nations, would have never happened if people had the wisdon to eat only
> fruits and other plant materials suited for the human's biological
> heritage.
>
> Laurie, on Mark's computer
Just a note ::: In India those cows are allowed to be slaughtered in
public slaughtering houses or in community festivals , those who have
stopped giving milk and the capability of producing issues and/or those
who are incapable of carrying the load of the yoke .....
mark prieto
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> > out of "hindu" diet around Gupta period after a big drought and dirth of
> > cows and bulls for cultivation.People ate up most of the cattle and then
> > a religious sanction was necessary to bring back the cattle population.
>
Prem Thomas
Kam wrote:
>
> Prem Thomas wrote on killing animals:
>
> > I have and I would again,
>
> Well thats just you isn't it.
Oh absolutely! I'd rather do that than hack a limb off of another human
being simply because I don't like his religion or his caste(as is
commonly the practice in "culturally advanced" countries like India).
> > if I needed to.
>
> Yes, for a lamb curry.
Closet relisher, you!
> > As to it being an atrocity, it
> > is no more so(given the right perpective)
>
> Yes, it must be fun being hacked to pieces.
I don't know about that, Pardee, but you guys must really enjoy doing
the hacking.
> > than harvesting millions of
> > live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a > fruit
> > tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit.
>
> Well, when they are pulled out do they squeal like the lamb for your
> curry.
Just because they are silent, does that make it hurt any less? Perhaps
if the lamb's tongue were removed prior to slaughter, it would be more
acceptable to you?
> > I have personally
> > witnessed a pair of "brahmin" bulls driven in such a circle until one
> > collapsed, and was then flogged until it was lying in it's own > excreta It died soon after.
>
> Well this is extremely sad, however if he had been well fed, he would
> have become your dinner.
*If* he had been well fed, he wouldn't have collapsed. Your response is
so very typical of the general hypocrisy of Indians, who see only what
they choose to see, and turn a blind eye to things that they do not wish
to acknowledge.
> > Look in your own backyard before you accuse others
> > of cruelty to animals.
>
> Ditto.
Who did the accusing, O you of grievously short memory? You will recall
that it was the unvenerable Mr. Maharaj that did! BTW, on your part,
this isn't about eating meat, is it?
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Prem Thomas
Sunil Gokhale wrote:
>
> In article <ECznz...@nonexistent.com>, Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> wrote:
> >Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >>
> >> Many pure vegetarians do not eat root vegetables
> >> and seeds because of the life or life potential contained in them.
> >>
> >> Jai Maharaj
> >
> >Following that logic, what else is eliminated from the "pure" vegetarian
> >diet? Let's see: onions, potatoes, tomatos, peas, garlic, ginger,
> >cumminseed, coriander seed, allspice, rice, wheat, millets, beans,
> >coconuts, yams........is there Indian vegetarian cuisine that survives
> >the elimination of these(and more) ingredients? And how about fruit such
> >as apples, oranges, pomegranates, mangos and other Indian favorites? Mr.
> >Maharaj carries his arguments to a ridiculous extreme.
> >
> >Prem
> >
>
> Hello Prem, I think on this one you are flogging Jai unnecessarily.
> He HIMSELF is not advocating it, he is just stating a practice.
You're quite right, Sunil, it probably is unnecessary, but entirely
deserved. You see, what extremists like Jai depend upon is the
reasonable nature of most people, who will accept a good point from even
the most vexing person. So he feeds in his general articles, very
well-intentioned, and then manipulates them to his(and his cohorts')
unseen agenda. If you visit the newsgroup alt.fan.jai-maharaj, where he
attempts to corral the threads he involves himself in/originates, you
may be able to discern his scheme of things.
One outstanding example of his hypocrisy is his support for(I believe he
originated the thread) reunification of the sub-continent. While he
extends some very plausible reasons for the desirability of that
happening, it conflicts with his other posts that constantly deride
muslims(and others), and his support for the BJP/RSS combine. Can you
imagine any sane Pakistani agreeing with this ogre?
Another example is this thread itself. The only reason he posts stuff
like this is to vilify Muslims and Christians, to rally moderate Hindus
behind the banner of the organisations he seeks to promote. My responses
to him are not in defense of meat-eating(I really don't care who does or
doesn't, as long as they don't bother me) or what have you, but in
offense against his larger agenda. The Indian readers of these
newsgroups largely live abroad, and a large portion of them are
university students. Students we rely on to help develop the nation down
the road. Poison such as that planted in their minds by Jai Maharaj is
counter-productive to the real national interests of India, causing as
it does divisions amongst Indians, hatred of the "Christian West" and
other such unproductive results. Curiously, he does all this on a medium
created by the United States government and supported by the US
taxpayer(which is why the internet is free).
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Prem Thomas
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> On July 9, 1997,
> in article <33C406...@ctp.com> ,
> Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> admitted:
> >
> > . . . I do not care about the studies . . . . - Soumitra Bose
What Mr. Maharaj hypocritically omitted was that Soumitra Bose also
said:
>> You did not get the point . I questioned your approach.
Mr. Maharaj of course declines(by omission) to address this concern,
instead choosing to denigrate Soumitra Bose, and using the opportunity
to post yet again all of the material he has already posted. Soumitra
Bose has a legitimate concern. Are you too chicken to address it, Mr.
Maharaj?
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Kam
Prem Thomas wrote:
>
> Kam wrote:
> >
> > Prem Thomas wrote on killing animals:
> >
> > > I have and I would again,
> >
> > Well thats just you isn't it.
>
> Oh absolutely! I'd rather do that than hack a limb off of another > human
> being simply because I don't like his religion or his caste
Did I say I would Hack anyone based on their cast or religion ? I don't
think so. You are the one who's admitted to doing all the "Oh
absolutely" hacking.
>(as is
> commonly the practice in "culturally advanced" countries like India).
Well since by your own admission you participate in the Oh absolutely!
hacking you had better help by stopping it.
> > > if I needed to.
> > Yes, for a lamb curry.
> Closet relisher, you!
Not really, Its obvious. For a goat curry you personally would Oh
absolutely! hack it death and make a curry.
> > > As to it being an atrocity, it
> > > is no more so(given the right perpective)
> >
> > Yes, it must be fun being hacked to pieces.
>
> I don't know about that, Pardee, but you guys must really enjoy doing
> the hacking.
Your the only one so far thats admitted "Oh absolutely" hacking.
>
> > > than harvesting millions of
> > > live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a > fruit
> > > tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit.
> >
> > Well, when they are pulled out do they squeal like the lamb for your
> > curry.
>
> Just because they are silent, does that make it hurt any less?
Sorry but I don't know any plant languages, but a squeal of animal, any
one can identify with.
> Perhaps
> if the lamb's tongue were removed prior to slaughter, it would be more
> acceptable to you?
Not really you'd see it writhing in agony with blood pouring out. But
the real question is would you be able to enjoy your goat curry with the
tongue missing.
> > > I have personally
> > > witnessed a pair of "brahmin" bulls driven in such a circle until >one
> > > collapsed, and was then flogged until it was lying in it's own > excreta It died soon after.
> >
> > Well this is extremely sad, however if he had been well fed, he would
> > have become your dinner.
>
> *If* he had been well fed, he wouldn't have collapsed.
Yes but he would only collapse later after being Oh absolutely! hacked
for food.
> Your response is
> so very typical of the general hypocrisy of Indians,
Well we are human after all.
> who see only what
> they choose to see,
You mean we should look away when the Oh absolutely! hacking is going on
?
> and turn a blind eye to things that they do not > > wish
> to acknowledge.
You do mean look away when the Oh absolutely! hacking is going on.
> > > Look in your own backyard before you accuse others
> > > of cruelty to animals.
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Who did the accusing, O you of grievously short memory?
Sorry I forgot what we were talking about.
> You will recall
Ah. Yes I remember now.
> that it was the unvenerable Mr. Maharaj that did!
But off course he did, how silly of me, and here I am thinking that some
one like you would start a discussion on Oh absolutely! hacking animals.
> BTW, on your part,
> this isn't about eating meat, is it?
Frankly know. Its all about responding to what I consider to be your
sarcastic remarks. You will note that all my responses have been to what
I consider to be sarcasm on your part with equal sarcasm on my part.
Bhaskar Manda
Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> writes:
>> > live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a > fruit
>> > tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit.
>> Well, when they are pulled out do they squeal like the lamb for your
>> curry.
>Just because they are silent, does that make it hurt any less?
In the case of plants most people accept that they don't feel pain; and
not just because they're silent.
-bhaskar
srikanth yellayi
srikanth dept of vet med
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> Uday Reddy wrote:
> >
> > Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually these idiots like Maharaj'ji do not know that nothing is
> > > forbidden in Hinduism.
> > > It is a broader faith and its power lies in the spirit of tolerance and
> > > Ahimsa. Bigotry and fanaticism is and was never a part of Hinduism.
> > > Unfortunately, these idiots who know nothing about their religion,
> > > history, culture, etc. have taken up the flag of patriotism and are
> > > trying to tell other people what a great country India (Bharat or
> > > Hindustan) will be under the rule of Hindutva.
> >
> > Oh, no. I hope we are not trying to invent a "true Hinduism" to counter
> > the real Hinduism (the faith that is actually practised by Hindus). The
> > arguments of "true Islam" vs "real Islam" are enough of a bore. Let us
> > not add to those.
> >
>
>
> This is absolutely BS.
> First of all there is nothing like "true" Hinduism and "real" Hinduism.
> Hinduism is a way of life to me. In that sense it is not even a religion
> to me.
> The Hinduism which is practised in the South of India is quite different
> from the Hinduism which we see in the North.
> In Bengal (may be because of Tantrik influence) the brand of Hinduism
> which we practise is based on Shakti puja. A lot of traditional Bengalis
> have a picture of Kali in their homes. In Kali puja (as many of us know)
> sacrificing animals is a ritual. In olden days we used to sacrifice
> buffalos and now a days we sacrifice goats. If you do not know this I
> will request you to go to Calcutta and visit Kalighat.
> You will be amazed to see how many goats are sacrificed every day.
> What do you think we do with those sacrificed goats and buffalo.
> Needless to say we eat them as prasad (or prasadam).
> So vegeterianism was and never will be a part of the Bengali brand of
> Hinduism.
> Even our Brahmins eat meat with a lot of enthusiasm.
> When guests come to our home we serve them with the best of the foods we
> have and that includes the head of a fish (Mach'er Muda). This is a
> tradition not only among the Hindus but also among the Muslims of
> Bengal.
> Rice and Fish is our staple diet and we are proud about it.
>
> > Maharaj's sentiments are representative of a significant section of
> > Hindus.
>
> That significant section of the polpulation is ignorant.
> India has a large number of illiterate people who are ignorant and has a
> large number of literate people who are ignorant too like Maharaj'ji.
>
> They are a vegetarian and they think it is great and think they
> > are ahead of the rest of humanity in human evolution etc. Vegetarianism
> > is a religious thing. The people that believe in it actually think it
> > is morally wrong and sinful to eat animals. This is real Hinduism. No
> > doubt about it.
> >
>
> That is BS.
> They do not eat meat because either they cannot afford to eat meat or
> they are miserly.
> Amongst Indians I think the Bengalis spend the most on food.
> Food of a typical North Indian is Roti and Achar and that of a typical
> South Indian is Dosa, Idli, Sambar and Rasam (occasionaly mixed with a
> tinge or a handfull of "gunpowder").
> I know a lot of vegetarian North Indian folks who do not eat meat at
> home but when they come to my place and I serve them meat they gladly
> eat it.After eating, they tell me do not let my wife or mother know
> about it.
> What hypocrits?
> If you say so that is true Hinduism.
>
> They do not eat meat at home because they want to save their purse.
>
>
> > On the other hand, there is no Hindu scripture that says "don't eat
> > <blah> or you will go to hell." So, who cares?
> >
> > Regarding beef, I have explained in another thread that it is a cultural
> > thing rather than a religious thing. I don't know any Hindus who think
> > they will go to hell if they eat beef. On the other hand, there are
> > plenty of them that think it is an uncivilized thing to do.
>
> Yes, only if they know that someone has had beef they ostracize them and
> when they come to their home they spray cow shit and cow urine around
> them to make themselves "pavitra" (or pure). This I guess is a very
> civilized and scientific thing to do!!
>
> I agree with you when you say that it is cultural rather than religious
> thing. I am told in Kerala a lot of Hindus eat beef and they have no
> problems about it.
>
> Hinduism is not a religion. It is a way of life.
>
> Cows in
> > South Asia are domestic animals, and it is the custom of the place to
> > tend to them and love them, but not kill them or eat them. Got it?
> >
> > Uday Reddy
>
> I can agree with you on this. But I will never like to impose my love
> for cows on another person. If cow is dear to me so is goat and by your
> logic if I can relish goat meat why can't I relish cow meat.
>
> Yes, if you say I should not eat beef or mutton because they are red
> meat and contain a lot of cholesterol then I can see your point. But
> here again what is bad for me may not be bad for my two year old son.
> Indians should and must feed their athletes well (if needed even with
> beef) if they want to get some medals in the olympics.
> Once their medal producing age is over, feed them with your "Ghas-ghoos"
> and they will live happily for a hundred years.
>
> As far as cows are concerned tend them, love them, drink their milk and
> eat them also if you feel like.
> To lead a life bound by lists of do's and don'ts is the worst kind of
> life one can lead.
> Be free, enjoy and let people enjoy. Do not keep preaching people what
> they ought to do.
>
> Subho.
>
>I think bengalis are the biggest buffons on earth. when most of the
westerners have started to realise the ill effwects of meat.
bengali's(bong's) argue against vegetarianism they must be having their
brains some where in the rear.
Mohammad Javed Khan
srikanth yellayi wrote:
> I think bengalis are the biggest buffons on earth. when most of the
> westerners have started to realise the ill effwects of meat.
> bengali's(bong's) argue against vegetarianism they must be having their
> brains some where in the rear.
Please see yourself in the mirror first!! What Bangalis are talking
about is a "balanced diet". In this balanced diet you have meat, fish,
vegetables, rice and other things. I think that is better than any
extreme (all meat or all veges).
Mohammad Javed Khan
Soumitra Bose
little into these cratures and then let them out with their real
attitude .Another achievement for the bengalees ..
Prem Thomas
Kam wrote:
>
>
> Sorry I forgot what we were talking about.
Too bad.
Shariq Ahmed Tariq
Aactually none of the three mentioned are vegetarian. I recently
heard that Kapil quit eating meat some time back and Gavaskar
may have done that too now but not when they both were younger.
From what I have heard Sachin's favorite food is steak 8-)
BTW only a couple of Indian cricket team players are vegetarian.
The rest eat meat like anyone else.
Regards,
Shaq
P.S all the so called super athletes became vegetarian later
on in their career to avoid the fat that came from
non-vegetarian food.
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> In article <33C3D4...@hotmail.com>,
> Digger <digger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Waqar Ali Shah wrote:
> >> You may have your own excuses for not eating meat but look what a
> >> vegitarian lifestyle is doing to the Indian cricket team. Just compare
> >> them with the Pakistan cricket team and you will see the difference.
> >> - Waqar Ali Shah
> >
> > There is no comparison at all. All past and present greats such as
> > Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and currently Sachin Tendulkar have been hailed to
> > be the greatest in the world. Pakistan had some good cricketers too, but
> > nothing compared to above three.
> > To justify that, Go check records. Here is the URL,
> > http://www.cricket.org.
> > To disapprove your point, the above THREE come from India and claim to
> > be vegetarian. Any problems with that.
> > Have you forgotten the bashing Pakis got in the world cup....HA HA, meat
> > eaters v/s vegetarains, what a concept. Only WACO mind can get perverted
> > ideas like these. - Digger
>
> If there is any doubt that there are no super-athletes who are vegetarian,
> I will be happy to re-post a list of vegetarian athletes. It contains greats
> such as Olympic Gold Medalist Edwin Moses who became SPORTS
> ILLUSTRATED's "Sportsman of the Year" in 1984. Here is a quote from SI:
>
> "No athlete in any sport is so respected by his peers as Moses is in track
> and field."
>
> Jai Maharaj
> 17,700 links to similar posts at:
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/#posts
> Om Shanti
>
> Copyright (C) 1997 Mantra Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
>
>
Kam
Prem Thomas wrote:
Yes, it must be quite a relief for you.
N HAZARIKA
In article <5q2r3o$8go$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
In that case, is it OK to make faces at a blind person? :-)
--
Neep Hazarika Neural Computing Research Group, CSAM
Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, U.K.
Phone: +44-121-359-3611 Ext. 4652 (work) +44-121-554-8247 (home)
E-mail: n.haz...@aston.ac.uk Fax: +44-121-333-6215
Prem Thomas
Prem Thomas
N HAZARIKA wrote:
>
> In article <5q2r3o$8go$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> bha...@orion.me.uiuc.edu (Bhaskar Manda) writes:
> > Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> writes:
> >>> > live plants rooted in the ground and still thriving, or trimming a > fruit
> >>> > tree's limbs to make it yield more fruit.
> >>> Well, when they are pulled out do they squeal like the lamb for your
> >>> curry.
> >>Just because they are silent, does that make it hurt any less?
> >
> > In the case of plants most people accept that they don't feel pain; and
> > not just because they're silent.
> >
> > -bhaskar
>
> In that case, is it OK to make faces at a blind person? :-)
Good point. But Bhaskar's cognisance only recognises physical
expressions of pain. It has been proved very long ago that plants, too,
sense pain. It's too bad that they are not capable of physical
manifestations of pain. BTW, I note Jai Maharaj *still* remains silent
on the ill-effects of the consumption of things like whole milk, butter,
ghee, and vegetable fats.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Dr. S. Mozumdar
For your kind information let me tell you that Bengalis are not the only
meat eaters in India.
For the Kashmiri Pundits and Brahmins, no festival is a festival and no
feast is a feast without meat. Is it not interesting to know?
I am also told that a significant part of the Hindu population of Kerala
also eat meat, yes and even beef.
In my list I have not even included the people from the North East,
Sikkim, etc. where a major portion of the population is omnivorous.
The Vaishnavites of Manipur eat almost anything that moves.
So you see that a lot of Hindus in India who eat meat and love eating
meat and so by your logic Bengalis are not the biggest buffoons.
Please read and learn more about your country and its people before you
open your mouth (or click on the send icon).
To you it may appear that all these people have brains in their rear and
to them it appears that you have no brains at all.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Shariq Ahmed Tariq wrote:
>
> Aactually none of the three mentioned are vegetarian. I recently
> heard that Kapil quit eating meat some time back and Gavaskar
> may have done that too now but not when they both were younger.
> From what I have heard Sachin's favorite food is steak 8-)
> BTW only a couple of Indian cricket team players are vegetarian.
> The rest eat meat like anyone else.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shaq
>
About Kapil he again started eating meat (only when he is out on a tour)
and Gavaskar has never stopped eating meat.
Good that you pointed out Sachin's favorite food is steak.
The only guy I know of who quitted eating meat was Md. Azharuddin
(probably the Bijlani influence). Isn't that interesting?
But now I am told that he is also seriously considering whether he
should start his old habit of eating meat.
I knew that stupid Sindhi influence cannot last long.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
So does he about the good effects of eating of Cow shit (Gobar) and Cow
urine (Go Chona).
Subho.
Bhaskar Manda
Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> writes:
>Good point. But Bhaskar's cognisance only recognises physical
>expressions of pain. It has been proved very long ago that plants, too,
>sense pain. It's too bad that they are not capable of physical
>manifestations of pain. BTW, I note Jai Maharaj *still* remains silent
Define the pain that you're talking about. The pain I'm
talking about is a defensive mechanism. You're mentioning studies
about physiological changes in plants, which have little in common
with animal pain.
>..on the ill-effects of the consumption of things like whole milk,
>butter, ghee, and vegetable fats.
This doesn't belong in a paragraph about pain. Do structure your
responses better.
-bhaskar
Prem Thomas
Bhaskar Manda wrote:
>
> Prem Thomas <pre...@qed.met> writes:
>
> >..on the ill-effects of the consumption of things like whole milk,
> >butter, ghee, and vegetable fats.
>
> This doesn't belong in a paragraph about pain. Do structure your
> responses better.
>
> -bhaskar
Sor-rryy! Are you going to give me a poor grade in Cybercomp? Yes, Jai
Maharaj needs to be addressed in his very own paragraph. (There I go
again.....) :-)
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
Shariq Ahmed Tariq
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> Shariq Ahmed Tariq wrote:
> >
> > Aactually none of the three mentioned are vegetarian. I recently
> > heard that Kapil quit eating meat some time back and Gavaskar
> > may have done that too now but not when they both were younger.
> > From what I have heard Sachin's favorite food is steak 8-)
> > BTW only a couple of Indian cricket team players are vegetarian.
> > The rest eat meat like anyone else.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Shaq
> >
I remember seeing Kapil eat meat (and that fellow can really
eat :-) ) but someone told me that he quit meat because he
was getting too fat and wanted to control his cholestrol
level. About Azhar, he does not eat non-zabiha meat meaning
he will not consume meat which is not slaughtered according
to Islamic guidelines. He cannot get such meat in the WI and
perhaps in a place like SA or NZ. Otherwise he eats meat.
srikanth yellayi
srikanth dept of vet med
I have no prejudice against Bengali's but I and many of my friend's share
a common thought i.e most bengali's use their wit's (if they have any)
in a criminal waY. MY ANSWER TO YOUR LAST SENTENCE IS. WE RATHER HAVE NO
BRAINS THAN HAVE THEM IN THE WRONG PLACE JUST LIKE AN NECROSED APPENDAGE. >
Soumitra Bose
You are so prophetically right ..You guys have no brains at all , so no
question of using it any way in any direction .
nanthi
Sri Lankan Hindus eat beef. 99% of the whole sri Lankans including
Buddhists eat beef. Some fifty years ago, beef eaters in Sri Lanka were
a few, but you can see beef stalls all over the island.
Mohit Sahni
I have lost track so I dont know which idiot said that
"Amongst Indians I think the Bengalis spend the most on food"
I think that person has never actually been to North India, I mean
punjab, haryana or delhi. I am not a surd but I have a lot of surd
friends and I have seen how lavish all their celebrations are. Also
other non-sikh punjabis. Have you ever been to a Punjabi wedding?
I have never been to a Bengali wedding so I dare not comment about it
but punjabis spend a lot on the wedding ceremony even sometimes when
they cannot afford it.
Well its not my view but in North India Bengalis are generally
considered to be a miserly class, ask any of your friends who have
spend sometime in New Delhi.
Mohit
nanthi
Bengalis are the well educated lot in the north India and the rest of
the uneducated northerners never understand the Bengalis...
Dr. S. Mozumdar
Mohit Sahni wrote:
> I have lost track so I dont know which idiot said that
> "Amongst Indians I think the Bengalis spend the most on food"
> I think that person has never actually been to North India, I mean
> punjab, haryana or delhi. I am not a surd but I have a lot of surd
> friends and I have seen how lavish all their celebrations are. Also
> other non-sikh punjabis. Have you ever been to a Punjabi wedding?
> I have never been to a Bengali wedding so I dare not comment about it
> but punjabis spend a lot on the wedding ceremony even sometimes when
> they cannot afford it.
>
> Well its not my view but in North India Bengalis are generally
> considered to be a miserly class, ask any of your friends who have
> spend sometime in New Delhi.
>
> Mohit
I said the above sentence. May be it was an over-statement, but the case
remains that a non-vegeterian dish in India costs more than a vegeterian
dish. The price of mutton per kilo was about Rs. 110 sometime back. That
of fish, say Hilsa (one Bengali favorite) is about Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 (may
be more per kilo). That of prawn is unthinkable.
I do not know whether any vegetable can beat them as far as price is
concerned.
As far as weddings are concerned you have to go to a Bengali wedding to
realize how much we spend on food itself.
About your comments on Bengalis, I can say this that I am a Bengali
myself and I am also from Delhi. So I do not have to ask anybody. It
appears that your view about the Bengali community is solely based on
some personal observation. I would advise you to make some friends with
more generous people and your misconception will be removed immediately.
I know of some Bengali families who go overboard to feed and entertain
their guests.
For your kind information I have also attended some Punjabi weddings
where after waiting for a long time all I was served were some snacks
and Thums Up, that's it. Off course there was Sharab, but that was only
for the distinguished guests. So you can compare.
But let me also tell you what I have observed is only in the cities. I
have never ventured into a real Punjab or Haryana countryside where the
weddings may be different and so may be the dinner.
But here again I am told that the Sikhs spend much more the Punjabi
Hindus on their wedding and they are all meat eaters like Bengalis. So
the case remains that the meat eaters spend a lot more on food than a
hard-core "Ghass-ghooss" eater from India.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
nanthi wrote:
>
> Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> >
> > srikanth yellayi wrote:
> > >
> > > srikanth dept of vet med
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I think bengalis are the biggest buffons on earth. when most of the
> > > westerners have started to realise the ill effwects of meat.
> > > bengali's(bong's) argue against vegetarianism they must be having their
> > > brains some where in the rear.
> >
> > For your kind information let me tell you that Bengalis are not the only
> > meat eaters in India.
> > For the Kashmiri Pundits and Brahmins, no festival is a festival and no
> > feast is a feast without meat. Is it not interesting to know?
> > I am also told that a significant part of the Hindu population of Kerala
> > also eat meat, yes and even beef.
> > In my list I have not even included the people from the North East,
> > Sikkim, etc. where a major portion of the population is omnivorous.
> > The Vaishnavites of Manipur eat almost anything that moves.
> >
> > So you see that a lot of Hindus in India who eat meat and love eating
> > meat and so by your logic Bengalis are not the biggest buffoons.
> > Please read and learn more about your country and its people before you
> > open your mouth (or click on the send icon).
> >
> > To you it may appear that all these people have brains in their rear and
> > to them it appears that you have no brains at all.
> >
> > Subho.
> --------------------------------
>
> Sri Lankan Hindus eat beef. 99% of the whole sri Lankans including
> Buddhists eat beef. Some fifty years ago, beef eaters in Sri Lanka were
> a few, but you can see beef stalls all over the island.
Very good. I think they are more intelligent than their Indian
counterparts.
The result can be seen when we compare the performance of the Indian and
the Sri Lankan cricket teams. BTW do you guys know that SL has beaten
India again by six wickets. What a shame for India!!
As far as the Buddhist eating beef, I am not sure if Buddha himself said
that all Buddhists must be vegeterian.
I am told Buddha himself took pork before he died. I may be wrong on
that.
Subho.
Dr. S. Mozumdar
nanthi wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Bengalis are the well educated lot in the north India and the rest of
> the uneducated northerners never understand the Bengalis...
Thank you for your support.
Subho.
srikanth yellayi
srikanth dept of vet med
---------------------------------------------------------
> bengali's (bongs) are perhaps the most untrustworthy people in the
whole subcontinent. talking about miserliness they exemplify the word
miser.
nanthi
Bengalis never bomb their cities like the Mumbai wallahs after getting
money from enemies. Look at your national anthem.. a Bengali wrote that
and you guys still sing. Why?
Prem Thomas
Uday Reddy wrote:
>
> In Europe, things evolved
> differently. They have tended to migrate more (even before the new
> world was discovered), and their numbers tended to be more stable as a
> result.
I think climatic extremes also had something to do with it.
You will note that, historically, Europe has had a higher population
density as you traverse it north to south. As a corollary, it might be
added that the warmer climate of southern Europe also made possible
multiple-cropping and extended pasturing of livestock, that in turn led
to a higher population density.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
nanthi
Prasad S. Kidambi wrote:
>
> Dear Readers,
>
> Hindism never propogated the Pure Vegitarianism. The Yagnas like Aswa
> Medha Aja Medha and Gomedha where it is mandatory even for the priests to
> eat meat of Horse, Goat and Cow are part of the Ayur Vedic Medicinal
> knowledge that speak of the medicinal properties of these meats cooked in a
> specific way and taken periodically. Refer Charaka Samhita for medicinal
> preparations of more than 50 different kinds of meat including the meat of
> Peacock and Sparrow used in specified yagnas. The point of Hindus are
> purely Vegitarian is propagated by ISKON and then by band of other so
> called psuedo spiritual Acharyas in West to have their alternative
> religious clout and have their own definition of Hinduism. Beaware and
> read the Simple translation of Charaka Samhitha..... The meat eating is
> prohibited only to Yoga Practitioners along with so many vegitables and
> spices and this is only at a very advanced level of yoga practice. Read
> Gheranda Samhitha on the diet of these yoga practioners.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bharath.
-----------------------------------------
Good and admirable reply. Please inform the readers about the
availability of those books with English translation.
nanthi
Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>
> nanthi wrote:
> >
> > Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
> > >
> > > srikanth yellayi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > srikanth dept of vet med
> > > >
>
> > > > >
> > > > westerners have started to realise the ill effwects of meat.
> > > > bengali's(bong's) argue against vegetarianism they must be having their
> > > > brains some where in the rear.
> > >
> > > For your kind information let me tell you that Bengalis are not the only
> > > meat eaters in India.
> > > For the Kashmiri Pundits and Brahmins, no festival is a festival and no
> > > feast is a feast without meat. Is it not interesting to know?
> > > I am also told that a significant part of the Hindu population of Kerala
> > > also eat meat, yes and even beef.
> > > In my list I have not even included the people from the North East,
> > > Sikkim, etc. where a major portion of the population is omnivorous.
> > > The Vaishnavites of Manipur eat almost anything that moves.
> > >
> > > So you see that a lot of Hindus in India who eat meat and love eating
> > > meat and so by your logic Bengalis are not the biggest buffoons.
> > > Please read and learn more about your country and its people before you
> > > open your mouth (or click on the send icon).
> > >
> > > To you it may appear that all these people have brains in their rear and
> > > to them it appears that you have no brains at all.
> > >
> > > Subho.
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > Sri Lankan Hindus eat beef. 99% of the whole sri Lankans including
> > Buddhists eat beef. Some fifty years ago, beef eaters in Sri Lanka were
> > a few, but you can see beef stalls all over the island.
>
> counterparts.
> The result can be seen when we compare the performance of the Indian and
> the Sri Lankan cricket teams. BTW do you guys know that SL has beaten
> India again by six wickets. What a shame for India!!
> As far as the Buddhist eating beef, I am not sure if Buddha himself said
> that all Buddhists must be vegeterian.
> I am told Buddha himself took pork before he died. I may be wrong on
> that.
>
> Subho.
Yes . you are right. Buddha preached against killing, but he never
against the eating of dead animals. If the Indians reduce the cattle
population by eating them, India will be strong and prosper in the
future.
Prasad S. Kidambi
Sunil Gokhale
In article <01bc9637$e9fa6480$b794bfcc@default>,
Prasad S. Kidambi <Bha...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Dear Readers,
>
>Hindism never propogated the Pure Vegitarianism. The Yagnas like Aswa
>Medha Aja Medha and Gomedha where it is mandatory even for the priests to
>eat meat of Horse, Goat and Cow are part of the Ayur Vedic Medicinal
>knowledge that speak of the medicinal properties of these meats cooked in a
>specific way and taken periodically. Refer Charaka Samhita for medicinal
>preparations of more than 50 different kinds of meat including the meat of
>Peacock and Sparrow used in specified yagnas.
...
>The meat eating is
>prohibited only to Yoga Practitioners along with so many vegitables and
>spices and this is only at a very advanced level of yoga practice. Read
>Gheranda Samhitha on the diet of these yoga practioners.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Bharath.
As a vegetarian I must admit that what you say above is correct. However
your argument would have been more accurate if you had added the adjective
'early' to the word 'Hinduism'.
The point being that, in later period, vegetarianism -for better or for
worse- has assumed great importance in actual religeous practices of
Hindus, be they (often non-Brahmin) 'warkaris' who walk from accross
Maharashtra to Vithoba temple in Pandharpur or the devotees who shun meat
for a month before visiting Shabarimalay temple in Kerala.
Also, I think most of the religeous teachers for many many years have
emphasized vegetarian diet when giving advice to followers interested
in spiritual practices. It is not just limited to the people you refer
to above as 'pseudo-acharyas'.
Hinduism is by no means unique in this respect. Other religions also
have specific days or occasions when the people were/are expected not
to eat meat, for example, I think the Lent (or some days in this period)
of catholics.
I also agree with Vivekananda, that those who want to eat meat can and
also that vegetarian diet, IF AT ALL, can only be a very small yardstick
in judging how 'good', 'compassionate' etc. a person is.
Soumitra Bose
nanthi wrote:
>
> Prasad S. Kidambi wrote:
> >
> > Dear Readers,
> >
> > Hindism never propogated the Pure Vegitarianism. The Yagnas like Aswa
> > Medha Aja Medha and Gomedha where it is mandatory even for the priests to
> > eat meat of Horse, Goat and Cow are part of the Ayur Vedic Medicinal
> > knowledge that speak of the medicinal properties of these meats cooked in a
> > specific way and taken periodically. Refer Charaka Samhita for medicinal
> > preparations of more than 50 different kinds of meat including the meat of
> > purely Vegitarian is propagated by ISKON and then by band of other so
> > called psuedo spiritual Acharyas in West to have their alternative
> > religious clout and have their own definition of Hinduism. Beaware and
> > prohibited only to Yoga Practitioners along with so many vegitables and
> > spices and this is only at a very advanced level of yoga practice. Read
> > Gheranda Samhitha on the diet of these yoga practioners.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bharath.
>
> Good and admirable reply. Please inform the readers about the
> availability of those books with English translation.
Check out Chaitanya Charitamrita (even THe ISKCON release says the
truth) .When Chaitanya was challenged by Daulat KAzi (he was the
ultimate arbitrator for any religious issues and were supporting the
Brahmins against Chaitanya ) about the beef and veal eating , Chaitanya
curtly replied "Yes , what happened was in the Satya Jug , Now in Kali
yug , one should not eat any meat !!!! great explanation indeed!!!
Soumitra Bose
Sunil Gokhale wrote:
>
> In article <01bc9637$e9fa6480$b794bfcc@default>,
> >
> >
> >Dear Readers,
> >
> >Hindism never propogated the Pure Vegitarianism. The Yagnas like Aswa
> >Medha Aja Medha and Gomedha where it is mandatory even for the priests to
> >eat meat of Horse, Goat and Cow are part of the Ayur Vedic Medicinal
> >knowledge that speak of the medicinal properties of these meats cooked in a
> >specific way and taken periodically. Refer Charaka Samhita for medicinal
> >preparations of more than 50 different kinds of meat including the meat of
> >Peacock and Sparrow used in specified yagnas.
>
>
> >The meat eating is
> >prohibited only to Yoga Practitioners along with so many vegitables and
> >spices and this is only at a very advanced level of yoga practice. Read
> >Gheranda Samhitha on the diet of these yoga practioners.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Bharath.
>
> your argument would have been more accurate if you had added the adjective
> 'early' to the word 'Hinduism'.
>
> The point being that, in later period, vegetarianism -for better or for
> worse- has assumed great importance in actual religeous practices of
> Hindus, be they (often non-Brahmin) 'warkaris' who walk from accross
> Maharashtra to Vithoba temple in Pandharpur or the devotees who shun meat
> for a month before visiting Shabarimalay temple in Kerala.
>
> Also, I think most of the religeous teachers for many many years have
> emphasized vegetarian diet when giving advice to followers interested
> in spiritual practices. It is not just limited to the people you refer
> to above as 'pseudo-acharyas'.
>
> Hinduism is by no means unique in this respect. Other religions also
> have specific days or occasions when the people were/are expected not
> to eat meat, for example, I think the Lent (or some days in this period)
> of catholics.
>
> I also agree with Vivekananda, that those who want to eat meat can and
> also that vegetarian diet, IF AT ALL, can only be a very small yardstick
> in judging how 'good', 'compassionate' etc. a person is.
Please do not talk about entire Hinduism .... No Saraswati Puja is
complete without a pair of Ilish . No Kali puja is complete without meat
.No Shakti puja is complete without the sacrifice on the Ninth day .....
Supratic Gupta
Soumitra Bose wrote:
> Check out Chaitanya Charitamrita (even THe ISKCON release says the
> truth) .When Chaitanya was challenged by Daulat KAzi (he was the
> ultimate arbitrator for any religious issues and were supporting the
> Brahmins against Chaitanya ) about the beef and veal eating , Chaitanya
> curtly replied "Yes , what happened was in the Satya Jug , Now in Kali
> yug , one should not eat any meat !!!! great explanation indeed!!!
What is so great in this reasoning? It has no logic behind why in Kali
yug this is suddenly prohibited?
Suraj Tamboli
Why Hindus Don't Eat Meat (Scientific Reasons)
Do Hindus really don't eat meat ?
As far as I know now a days 95% hindu's eat meat.
So the above on going talk is just time pass. Talk about
things that are in present not past.
Soumitra Bose
Supratic Gupta wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> > Check out Chaitanya Charitamrita (even THe ISKCON release says the
> > truth) .When Chaitanya was challenged by Daulat KAzi (he was the
> > ultimate arbitrator for any religious issues and were supporting the
> > Brahmins against Chaitanya ) about the beef and veal eating , Chaitanya
> > curtly replied "Yes , what happened was in the Satya Jug , Now in Kali
> > yug , one should not eat any meat !!!! great explanation indeed!!!
>
> What is so great in this reasoning? It has no logic behind why in Kali
> yug this is suddenly prohibited?
That was my point ...Chaitanya never offered any explanation !!!!
Prasad S. Kidambi
Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> wrote in article <33D524...@ctp.com>...
> nanthi wrote:
> >
> > Prasad S. Kidambi wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Readers,
> > >
> > > Hindism never propogated the Pure Vegitarianism. The Yagnas like
Aswa
> > > Medha Aja Medha and Gomedha where it is mandatory even for the
priests to
> > > eat meat of Horse, Goat and Cow are part of the Ayur Vedic Medicinal
> > > knowledge that speak of the medicinal properties of these meats
cooked in a
> > > specific way and taken periodically. Refer Charaka Samhita for
medicinal
> > > preparations of more than 50 different kinds of meat including the
meat of
> > > Peacock and Sparrow used in specified yagnas. The point of Hindus
are
> > > purely Vegitarian is propagated by ISKON and then by band of other so
> > > called psuedo spiritual Acharyas in West to have their alternative
> > > religious clout and have their own definition of Hinduism. Beaware
and
> > > read the Simple translation of Charaka Samhitha..... The meat eating
is
> > > prohibited only to Yoga Practitioners along with so many vegitables
and
> > > spices and this is only at a very advanced level of yoga practice.
Read
> > > Gheranda Samhitha on the diet of these yoga practioners.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bharath.
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > Good and admirable reply. Please inform the readers about the
> > availability of those books with English translation.
>
>
> Check out Chaitanya Charitamrita (even THe ISKCON release says the
> truth) .When Chaitanya was challenged by Daulat KAzi (he was the
> ultimate arbitrator for any religious issues and were supporting the
> Brahmins against Chaitanya ) about the beef and veal eating , Chaitanya
> curtly replied "Yes , what happened was in the Satya Jug , Now in Kali
> yug , one should not eat any meat !!!! great explanation indeed!!!
>
Dear Readers,
But Chaitanya Maha Prabhu Probably never would have told that "Sri Radha
Devi
is the Best Girl Friend of Krishna, because she possdesed the slim and
white body-as posted in bold letters as one of the ten reasons why Lord
Krishna liked Sri Radha on one of their main ISKON temple walls of Wheeling
Pensylvania........ So too about the Vegitarianism. Chaitanya Maha Prabhu
is an exhalted Yogi/Bhaktha/ Gnani and if he states something to X at a
specific time period to change his orientation towards a higher conscious
elevation then that has to be considered only in that context. Quoting
out of context, or reading only underlined passages in the books and
htinking that we read the whole book and wisdom is incorrect procedure of
learning. Even in Bhagavath Gita Lord Krishna said that "karyaakarya
vyavasthithou sasthram pramaanam the"- in deciding which is right and which
is wrong it is the Texts called as Sastras composed by the sages that are
ultimately valid. Lord Krishna never said that either he or his deciples
that come over a span of next milineium are standards. Lord Krishna also
said that "sarvam yagne pratishthitham"-the whole center of human life
establishes around the yagna. He never said that according to Satya or
Kali the yagnas are to be changed. As I already posted the Bharatha is
tha essence of the meaning of the Veda and the heart of the Bharatha never
goes against the wisdom of the Vedas. If we open our minds from narrow
parochial interests and spiritusal affiliations we will definately evolve
ourselves in to higher intellectual planes.
Regards,
Bharath.
Abhinandan Prateek
Dr. S. Mozumdar wrote:
>
> nanthi wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Bengalis are the well educated lot in the north India and the rest of
> > the uneducated northerners never understand the Bengalis...
>
>
> Subho.
do ben-gali