ARTICLE : Why?
Mikkey Panchal
I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow?? What about the sins
you commit while eating the other animals? All I can say is the desi
mentality just hits me sometimes. Thats like me saying I eat all fruits
from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
belief of vegetarianism. I'm open to any feedbacks that you may have.
Thanks
--
Mikkey Panchal [-RYeRSON-]
Third Year Computer SCiENCE
Email: mpan...@acs.ryerson.ca / mpan...@scs.ryerson.ca
: pan...@airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca
URL : http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~mpanchal
"It's not about making it anymore, it's about keeping it!"
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail posts to: gh...@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Perwesh Sharma
Mikkey, as far as I recollect there is no mention of Hindu in Bhagawat
Gita except in later commentaries. Perhaps the other can put me right
on this one.
Rgds, Perwesh
In article <ghenE8n...@netcom.com>, Mikkey Panchal <mpanchal@jupiter
.scs.Ryerson.CA> writes
> I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
>sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
>killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
>brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
>Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
<Snipped>
>
>--
>Mikkey Panchal [-RYeRSON-]
>Third Year Computer SCiENCE
>Email: mpan...@acs.ryerson.ca / mpan...@scs.ryerson.ca
> : pan...@airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca
>URL : http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~mpanchal
>"It's not about making it anymore, it's about keeping it!"
--
Perwesh Sharma
Daly de Gagne
Namaste.
Mikkey Panchal wrote:
> ...yet there are
> brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
> Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
> want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
> sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow??
Mikkey, I appreciate your observation. Yes, it is true we accord
special respect to the cow, so many of us do not eat beef though we may
eat other meat. I think if you are a meat-eater, it is good at least
not to eat beef because you are at least showing that traditional
respect to the cow, and have made one step forward on the "slippery
slope" :> of vegetarianism.
I slid down that slippery slop 14 years ago, and am glad I did.
Vegetarianism with awareness of why we are vegetarian, why we choose to
follow that part of our teaching, is powerful practice.
> What about the sins
> you commit while eating the other animals?
That's my thought exactly. To be consistent, I think we need to avoid
eating anything which, as some of my younger friends say, "ever wore a
face." Actually, I use that line myself to get the point across to
waitresses in restaurants. You're probably familiar with this kind of
exchange.
Me (looking at a giant-size menu with dozens of items and wanting simply
to be pointed to the one or two items I might be able to eat): I'm
vegetarian. What would you recommend.
Waitress: Oh, you're vegetarian. That's nice. Do you eat chicken?
Me: No. I'm vegetarian.
Waitress: I understand. Well, we have this nice tuna fish salad.
Me (trying to appear calm and to keep from showing either frustration or
grinning at the humour of the situation): No. I'm vegetarian. That
means I don't eat anything which ever wore a face.
Waitress: That's funny. Do shrimp have faces?
Me: Yes, if you look closely enough.
> All I can say is the desi
> mentality just hits me sometimes. Thats like me saying I eat all fruits
> from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
> religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
The inconsistency around this question does sound like bs, but as I say,
at least people are respecting part of the tradition.
> Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
> appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
> vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
> belief of vegetarianism.
We don't have many Jains here, but I am aware that a very large
percentage of them take seriously ahimsa, and that vegetarianism for
them is a big part of that. I, too, appreciate their position and think
that it is one which we do well to be aware of.
I am sad to see in many Indian homes that the kids are not following in
the vegetarian way. Also, I am saddened at the number of homes where it
is the ladies only who are vegetarian. If the men are going to eat meat
in such situations, I wish they would have the grace to not expect their
wives to cook it. But that's another story which has as much to do
about culture as it does about diet and religion. :>
Mikkey, I am glad you take the time to recognize the positive aspects of
another tradition. To me, that is an intrinsic part of Hindu practice,
to be able to appreciate the different traditions.
Daly
Raj.Kumar...@nortel.ca
Mikkey Panchal (mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA) wrote:
: I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
: killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In which sloka is it mentioned so?
: brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
: Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
: sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow?? What about the sins
Please understand one thing: If a person feels that eating beef is bad,
it is his problem alone, be it due to religious compulsions or ideological
reasons. That should not bother you, unless you're selling beef. And FYI,
there is nothing that bans a Hindu from eating meat.
There are hindus who eat beef also , especially most of the hindus in
Kerala.
: from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
: religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
: Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
: appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
: vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
: belief of vegetarianism. I'm open to any feedbacks that you may have.
OK, it's good to promote vegetarianism. But please throw away the notion
that Hinduism is for vegetarians alone.
Regards,
Rajkumar.
Sunil Sethi
Hi Perwesh,
In the Gita Lord Krishna says :
Offer fruit, grains, water or flowers with love and devotion and I shall
accept them.
Other items such as meat, fish, eggs etc. are not mentioned. It is also
mentioned that those who do not offer are eating sin. Krishna asks for
everything to be offered unto him, otherwise we are classed as thieves !!!
I did give references here in the vegetarian topic to the Vedic home page,
there people find references to text in the Vedas that forbid meat eating.
Eating beef is very sinful.
Sunil
Perwesh Sharma <kspe...@primex.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<ghenE8p...@netcom.com>...
> Mikkey, as far as I recollect there is no mention of Hindu in Bhagawat
> Gita except in later commentaries. Perhaps the other can put me right
> on this one.
>
> Rgds, Perwesh
>
> In article <ghenE8n...@netcom.com>, Mikkey Panchal <mpanchal@jupiter
> .scs.Ryerson.CA> writes
> > I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
> >sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
> >killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
> >brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
> >Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
>
> <Snipped>
>
> >
> >--
> >Mikkey Panchal [-RYeRSON-]
> >Third Year Computer SCiENCE
> >Email: mpan...@acs.ryerson.ca / mpan...@scs.ryerson.ca
> > : pan...@airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca
> >URL : http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~mpanchal
> >"It's not about making it anymore, it's about keeping it!"
>
> --
> Perwesh Sharma
Swaminathan Narayanan
In article <ghenE8r...@netcom.com>, Raj.Kumar...@nortel.ca writes:
|> Mikkey Panchal (mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA) wrote:
|>
|> OK, it's good to promote vegetarianism. But please throw away the notion
|> that Hinduism is for vegetarians alone.
|>
Oops! You are mistaken. The same question featured (was it on the same day?)
in soc.religion.christianity :-) I don't think Mikkey is saying "Hinduism is
for vegetarians alone." He being a vegetarian, he goes around questioning
every other meat-eater. Right Mikkey? (Probably we might find his question
in other SR groups too!
In soc.religion.christian, someone was answering to this posting:
Mikkey Panchal <mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA> wrote
> In one of the 10 commandments it states that 'thou shall not kill' and
> yet most of the Christians are meat eaters. Is maintaining slaughter
> houses not going directly against this commandment from god himself?
Swami
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE8r...@netcom.com> Raj.Kumar...@nortel.ca writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
I agree with Mr. Kumar.
Mikkey Panchal (mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA) wrote:
: I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
: sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In which sloka is it mentioned so?
Krishna himself and Arjuna as well were part of the Kshatriya
tradition which did not at all abstain from killing! Please read the
story of Krishna's life again.
: brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
: Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
: sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow?? What about the sins
Please understand one thing: If a person feels that eating beef is bad,
it is his problem alone, be it due to religious compulsions or ideological
reasons. That should not bother you, unless you're selling beef. And FYI,
there is nothing that bans a Hindu from eating meat.
There are hindus who eat beef also , especially most of the hindus in
Kerala.
Yes, actually Hinduism seems to have legends where Kshatriyas
conflicted with Brahmins on the issue of eating cows -- battle between
Vishwamitra and Vasistha, legend of Parashurama etc. What is
interesting is that Magadha had a tradition of eating cows and it rose
to great prominence as a kingdom -- it originated using a ritual where
a cow was sacrificed. Kerala still has a tradition of eating cows and
it was never conquered even by the British, its Kshatriya tradition
has to this day preserved Kalaripayettu which is considered to be a
highly developed martial art. And now the United States eats cows and
rises to prominence. So I say eat cows and be prosperous.
Up until Buddhism, the Ayurvedic texts seem to ascribe no great harm
to eating meat, though they do display some hostility towards
professional hunters -- i.e. the hostility seems to be based largely
on the preference of the Brahmins not some issue of meat causing
bodily harm.
: from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
: religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
: Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
: appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
: vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
: belief of vegetarianism. I'm open to any feedbacks that you may have.
OK, it's good to promote vegetarianism. But please throw away the notion
that Hinduism is for vegetarians alone.
N. Tiwari
Kunal Singh (nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com) wrote:
: Yes, actually Hinduism seems to have legends where Kshatriyas
: conflicted with Brahmins on the issue of eating cows -- battle between
: Vishwamitra and Vasistha, legend of Parashurama etc. What is
: interesting is that Magadha had a tradition of eating cows and it rose
: to great prominence as a kingdom -- it originated using a ritual where
: a cow was sacrificed. Kerala still has a tradition of eating cows and
: it was never conquered even by the British, its Kshatriya tradition
: has to this day preserved Kalaripayettu which is considered to be a
: highly developed martial art. And now the United States eats cows and
: rises to prominence. So I say eat cows and be prosperous.
How canthe battle between Vasishtha and Viswamitra
be interpreted about to eat or not to eat. Nothing
in any scripture tells me that the fight was about
eating cows. It was about the ownership of the cow
posseseed by Vashishtha. Viswamitra wanted to take
it bey force. Vashishtrah refused.
Further, this specially for Kunal. His idea that
Vishwamitra was a Shaivite is entirely incorrect.
Nothing to my knowledge tells me that that is
true. On the other hand, Vashishstha, for all we
know was a great bhakta of Shiva. A Shiva Pancha_
Akshara stotra praises Shiva, in which it alludes
to Vashishtha as one of the devotees of Shiva.
The stotra says:
Vashishtha_kobhodbhava gatuama_aarya .... charchitaya
((He/Shiva) has been praised by Vashishtha, Agastya,
Goutam).
In the same mamahamntra, Shiva is also described
as the lord of Nandi, a male cow. It alludes to
Shiva as:
nandeeshavar.
It is said, that Nandi is no small cow. He is very
pwerful, and a great bhakta of Shiva. I have yet
to see a Shiva temple, which does not also have ann
idol Nandi.
The greatest bhakta of Shiva, that is
Shri Ram, is himself in Ramayan described as the
protector of cows. His ancestor, (I think Dilip)
offered a lion to eat himself, when the lion
was almost going to kill a cow. The entire Raghu
Vamsha, starting from Dilip to Ram, were great
devotees of Shiva. It was not by accident. Perhaps,
the reason for their Shiva bhakti, was the fact
that their Kulguru was Vashishtha. Still further,
you will find a lot of Vashishtha gotra brahmins
in N. India, who have Shiva as their kul devataa.
As far as I have read, there is NO major school
iof Hinduism, that has in any sense argued FOR
killing cows. You will have of course all sorts
of variant groups, for a variety of reasons. But
all the three major traditions: Shakta, Shaiva
and Vaishnav, have accorded a great deal of respect
to cow.
Perhaps, the Vaishnavas, have gone further, and
actually most voviferously advocated abstinence
from meat at all. That Shaiva and Shakta tradition
have not so strongly insisted on vegetarianism.
But cow killing is one thing, that all these 3
traditions, have actively discouraged.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
M Suresh
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 Raj.Kumar...@nortel.ca wrote:
> Mikkey Panchal (mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA) wrote:
> : I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
> : sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In which sloka is it mentioned so?
It may not be in Gita. But killing in general is prohibited in some
hindu scriptures. I feel that The Buddha brought vegetarianism into
hinduism. However it certainly can be supported by scriptures as is
done by Madhwas, Vaishnavites and ISKCONites.
> : brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
> : Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef? If you
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
> : sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow?? What about the sins
>
> Please understand one thing: If a person feels that eating beef is bad,
> it is his problem alone, be it due to religious compulsions or ideological
> reasons.
If it is for religious reasons there is no problem to it being
discussed here.
> That should not bother you, unless you're selling beef. And FYI,
> there is nothing that bans a Hindu from eating meat.
Maybe not. But vegetarianism is definitely given much importance in
hinduism. Many hindus do not eat non-vegatarian on auspicious days
of the week. Hindu temples give vegetarian prasad. Hindu ashrams
serve vegatarian food. Cooking on festival days is mostly
vegetarian. Many hindu saints and religious leaders support
vegetarianism.
> There are hindus who eat beef also , especially most of the hindus in
> Kerala.
So what? It does not show anything. Hindus in Kerala or any other
place may do so many things. Most of it may have nothing whatsoever
to do with hinduism and many of it may be against hinduism.
It is a fact that cow is considered sacred in hinduism. So killing
cows for satisfaction of the palate cannot have a very high place in
hinduism.
Any person can call himself a hindu. But there is a lot of
difference between sporting the label of "Hindu" and practicing
hinduism. The same goes for any religion.
Hinduism does not force vegetarianism. For that matter it does not
force anything at all. This flexibility is meant for each person
practising religion according to his own temperament to progress
towards god. It is not for justifying whatever one wants to do.
That way anything can be justified by arguments applied wrongly.
> : from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
> : religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
> : Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
> : appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
> : vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
> : belief of vegetarianism. I'm open to any feedbacks that you may have.
>
> OK, it's good to promote vegetarianism. But please throw away the notion
> that Hinduism is for vegetarians alone.
As I said vegetarianism has a high place in hinduism. So vegetarianism can
be promoted through hinduism also.
> Regards,
> Rajkumar.
regards,
Suresh.
Sunil Sethi
Hi Kunal,
It states in the Gita that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In which sloka is it mentioned so?
>
Krishna tell us in the Gita to Arjuna (as stated in other discussions I
have written the reference).
Offer me with love and devotion a flower, grains, fruits, water and I shall
accept them.
Most "normal" people will tell you what they would like to eat and not a
huge list of what they don't want to eat. Further Krishna says in Chapter 3
verse 13 :
The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they
eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for
personal sense enjoyment, verily eat sin only.
So meat, fish etc... are not acceptable and 3.13 tells you that you are
eating sin.
> Krishna himself and Arjuna as well were part of the Kshatriya
> tradition which did not at all abstain from killing! Please read the
> story of Krishna's life again.
>
I have spent my life reading the past times of the Lord and you are very
wrong as the Kshatriya's do not kill unless they have to protect the
population from harm. Please explain yourself !
>
> Please understand one thing: If a person feels that eating beef is
bad,
> it is his problem alone, be it due to religious compulsions or
ideological
> reasons. That should not bother you, unless you're selling beef. And
FYI,
> there is nothing that bans a Hindu from eating meat.
> There are hindus who eat beef also , especially most of the hindus in
> Kerala.
>
Wrong you must have missed the references that were quoted in this NG,
regarding the vedas that forbid meat eating also the references see the
following homepage for an extensive number of quotes :
http://envirolink.org/arrs/essays/virtues.htlm#ix
Then put the above reference as a bookmarker to remind yourself. So you
want people to follow other peoples bad examples like sheep to the
slaughter !!!! Sounds very intelligent .....
>So I say eat cows and be prosperous.
>
You obviously know about the sad story of Australia where for this reason
we have salation of our soils and soil degredation. You certainly are aware
of the problems in South America due to the beef industry.
Prosper for how long ?
>
> OK, it's good to promote vegetarianism. But please throw away the
notion
> that Hinduism is for vegetarians alone.
>
No. It is for all beings irrespect of what body type they have, where they
live, time, space etc. See my reference before you speculate any further.
Sunil
M Suresh
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 Mikkey Panchal (mpan...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA) wrote:
> I would like to know why many of my fellow Hindu brothers and
> sisters go directly against our religion. It states in the Gita that
> killing of any sort is banned by a Hindu, and yet there are
> brothers/sisters/uncles and aunties out there that freely consume meat.
> Why is it for them ok to eat fish, chicken etc, but not beef?
Because cow is considered a sacred animal. It is considered to be
like a mother in many parts of India. So eating beef is considered
sinful in hinduism.
> If you
> want to eat meat, why not just eat everything?? What.. eating beef is
> sinned cause of the religious aspects of the cow?? What about the sins
> you commit while eating the other animals? All I can say is the desi
> mentality just hits me sometimes.
This kind of all or nothing argument is also used in rhetoric
arguments justifying non-vegetarianism. It goes something like
plants lose their life, bacteria in curd lose their life, pests like
rats are killed for cultivation in vegetarianism so why not kill
animals for eating? So in this mode of thinking cannibalism could be
justified with a "if animals can be eaten why not humans?" question.
It is something like saying If you lose some money then go and dump
all your possesions into the nearest well.
There is a gradation of jiva's or souls. Killing a higher life form
causes more suffering than killing a lower life form. For example
the lives of bacteria lost during breathing or consuming curd is not
the same as the life of a cow. Such a gradation could be
Matter < Cellular life < plants < small animals < animals < cow < man
So this way eating beef is more sinful than eating mutton :-).
No one can live without directly and indirectly contributing to
killing of living things. The thing is each person should try to
lessen the killing and suffering of living things in whatever
practical way he can without glorifying himself indirectly by
critisizing others or by justifying his own mode of living.
> Thats like me saying I eat all fruits
> from apples to oranges, but I cannot eat a pineapple cause of my
> religion.. (sounds like bullshit right).. my point exactly.
No.
For example there are many kinds of vegetables carrots, potatoes
etc. However excessive use of vegetables like onion/garlic are not
recommended because they activate the mind in an undesirable way.
> Not being Jain myself, I would like to take the time to
> appreciate the Jaina's out there. Not only are *MOST* uncles and aunts
> vegetarians, but they have also brought up their kids in the same
> belief of vegetarianism. I'm open to any feedbacks that you may have.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Mikkey Panchal [-RYeRSON-]
> Third Year Computer SCiENCE
> Email: mpan...@acs.ryerson.ca / mpan...@scs.ryerson.ca
> : pan...@airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca
> URL : http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~mpanchal
> "It's not about making it anymore, it's about keeping it!"
> --
Regards,
Suresh.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE8r...@netcom.com> "Sunil Sethi" <sse...@onaustralia.com.au> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
I did give references here in the vegetarian topic to the Vedic home page,
there people find references to text in the Vedas that forbid meat eating.
Eating beef is very sinful.
That is absolutely nonsense. The sage Vishwamitra has verses
attributed to him in the Vedas. He ate beef, his children were fed
beef by Satyavrata (an ancestor of Rama later known as Trishanku) who
killed one of Vasistha's cows to feed them during a time when there
wasn't much game around. Though Vasistha was quite upset, Vishwamitra
obviously was not. Vasishta threw Trishanku out of his caste and
Vishwamitra raised Trishanku to heaven within his material body and
restored him to the throne of Ayodhya!
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE8z...@netcom.com> nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
How canthe battle between Vasishtha and Viswamitra
be interpreted about to eat or not to eat. Nothing
in any scripture tells me that the fight was about
eating cows. It was about the ownership of the cow
posseseed by Vashishtha. Viswamitra wanted to take
it bey force. Vashishtrah refused.
Viswamitra was a non-vegetarian and ate meat, this is mentioned in
several places in the Puranas. Once he even ate dog's meat when none
other was available. Secondly in the legends of Parasurama, in the
Brahma Purana, it clearly states that the Haihaya king ate cows and in
one place mentions that it was customary in Magadha to eat cows. The
similarity between Vishwamitra's story and Parasurama's story is
obvious.
Secondly Viswamitra was travelling with his army or hunting party when
he arrived at Vasishta's ashram. Once he did, the story goes that
Vasishta couldn't understand why should Viswamitra "take the cow" when
the cow would give him all the food he needed -- milk etc. Viswamitra
was pressed for meat probably because he was travelling with others.
Mr. Tiwari should also know that at the time, there was very little
game around. The Purana describes it as a some sort of a dry spell
for hunting, though it doesn't give a reason. Later Viswamitra was
quite grateful to Trisanku for providing meat for his family when he
was away.
Vishwamitra did not immediately seize the cow, he first offered a
price for it, including his kingdom. When Vasishta refused all of it,
he just couldn't understand Vasistha's obstinate refusal and declared
that since the ashram was part of his kingdom and he was the king, he
had a right to seize the cow (I guess you could call it right to
commandeer).
Parasurama's story is quite similar except the Haihaya king's sons
took the cow's calf in the night and ate it just to annoy him.
Further, this specially for Kunal. His idea that
Vishwamitra was a Shaivite is entirely incorrect.
Nothing to my knowledge tells me that that is
true. On the other hand, Vashishstha, for all we
know was a great bhakta of Shiva. A Shiva Pancha_
Akshara stotra praises Shiva, in which it alludes
to Vashishtha as one of the devotees of Shiva.
That Vishwamitra was a Shaivite is entirely correct. He was the head
priest of Karttikeya and thus the man responsible for developing the
concept of the "pancha tattwa." As Karttikeya is responsible for his
being given the status of a Brahmin, he can be considered to be
primarily Shaivite without much doubt due to the fact that he was a
proponent of the shakti school of thought -- Karttikeya was considered
to be the son of Parvati despite his being born from Shiva's semen,
Ganesa being a direct response of Shakti (Parvati) to Karttikeya being
taken away from them unfairly.
Most learned men at the time studied not simply one philosophy but
others as well. That Vishwamitra owed his Brahminhood to Shaivites is
obvious. However Vasishta may indeed have pursued a combination of
the two schools. But apparently there was great conflict between the
two, and a fierce personal rivalry ensued. Vishwamitra was said to
have turned the Sarswati red with the blood of Brahminical deities due
to feeling discriminated against by them. There are stories where
Vishwamitra was said to be plotting to murder Vasishta and likewise
there are stories where Vasishta was plotting to poison Vishwamitra.
The victor would be Vishwamitra as his became a dominant school at the
time by several historians' account. And of course the relevance of
the "pancha tattwa" to the Hindu sciences should be apparent to all
who understand it.
.. stuff deleted ..
It is said, that Nandi is no small cow. He is very
pwerful, and a great bhakta of Shiva. I have yet
to see a Shiva temple, which does not also have ann
idol Nandi.
Nandi is not a cow, he is a bull and it was a deity founded by sage
Silada who wanted a deity that was beyond the concept of death. It
has nothing to do with the holiness of a cow! The special position of
a cow seems to have emerged at the Sagar Manthan. However, what that
special position entailed -- whether that exempted it from being eaten
is not clear.
The greatest bhakta of Shiva, that is
Shri Ram, is himself in Ramayan described as the
protector of cows. His ancestor, (I think Dilip)
offered a lion to eat himself, when the lion
was almost going to kill a cow. The entire Raghu
Vamsha, starting from Dilip to Ram, were great
devotees of Shiva. It was not by accident. Perhaps,
the reason for their Shiva bhakti, was the fact
that their Kulguru was Vashishtha. Still further,
you will find a lot of Vashishtha gotra brahmins
in N. India, who have Shiva as their kul devataa.
Rama is described as the protector of dharma and Brahmins can and have
often interpreted that or elaborated that to mean protector of cows.
Ram being a Shaivite (at least some Shaivite temples in Bihar claim
that Rama founded them while going to marry Sita) has nothing to do
with the inclinations of his ancestors. Indeed that Vasishta was the
guru of so many of the Ikshvakus probably means that they lived by the
philosophy of the sage Vasishta which continued beyond the lifetime of
the sage himself (Vasishtasamhita?) .
As far as I have read, there is NO major school
iof Hinduism, that has in any sense argued FOR
killing cows. You will have of course all sorts
of variant groups, for a variety of reasons. But
all the three major traditions: Shakta, Shaiva
and Vaishnav, have accorded a great deal of respect
to cow.
Perhaps, the Vaishnavas, have gone further, and
actually most voviferously advocated abstinence
from meat at all. That Shaiva and Shakta tradition
have not so strongly insisted on vegetarianism.
But cow killing is one thing, that all these 3
traditions, have actively discouraged.
Not true, Asuras and Vraityas of northern Bihar and Magadha
respectively were largely Shaivite. Taraka whom Karttikeya defeated
was also a Shaivite. Some asuras even had boons that they be killed
only by Shiva. The Vraityas of southern Bihar did eat cows. The
elaborate sacrifice where Magadha was born has the description of a
cow being set loose to run over the land and then ritualistically
sacrificed. The cow complained saying that certainly the king was not
going to kill her, a cow, a female. The king dismisses the objection
by clearly stating that a killing which benefits others is indeed
proper. Also, that the Haihaiyas ate cows is also apparent. At the
time, religion was fully integrated with cultural tradition, thus
Mr. Tiwari cannot make the claim that no religious school ever allowed
the killing of cows. Shaivism obviously if it did not actively
encourage it did not discourage it either.
In several Kshatriya circles at the time, killing cows and eating it
was quite normal. I'm not sure of how the Nagas felt about it. And
the Kshatriyas tended to become Shaivite perhaps in response to the
Vaishnavas requiring vegetarianism. That the Shaivite tradition
derives from the Naga tradition is obvious due to the naga around
Shiva's neck named Vasuki (a Naga king).
But that Shaivism was prevalent within Kshatriya circles can be seen
by the term "nataraja" which has become synonymous with Shiva. It is
actually derived from "nata" which was a form of Vajramukti or unarmed
combat practiced by Kshatriyas similar to "katas" of Karate. The term
nataka comes from "nata" where the students practiced pretending to be
fighting an opponent. Vajramukti naturally was derived from the
Kshatriya deity of Indra. The Shaivite dance of "Bharat Natyam"
contains many moves related to martial arts and originally may have
been practiced by Kshatriyas. According to Tsing I who travelled to
Bharata around 200 AD or so, Vajramukti was quite a common tradition
in the north eastern regions of Bharata. Interestingly, it was the
moves of Vajramukti which Bodhidharma took to China and transformed
into the Lohan Kung Fu, the first Kung Fu form of Shaolin. And also
according to Chinese legends the Indian Kshatriyas of the
north-eastern region also seem to have discovered acupuncture due to
their experience in warfare -- they noticed that some who acquired
minor wounds from arrows actually became cured of previous ailments.
So they spent some time in prisons experimenting on some prisoners
with knives and needles. Thus Shaivism was quite free to explore
knowledge as Vaishnavism never was and it has since formed much of the
foundation of Bharatiya sanskriti.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE8...@netcom.com> "Sunil Sethi" <sse...@onaustralia.com.au> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> Krishna himself and Arjuna as well were part of the Kshatriya
> tradition which did not at all abstain from killing! Please read the
> story of Krishna's life again.
>
I have spent my life reading the past times of the Lord and you are very
wrong as the Kshatriya's do not kill unless they have to protect the
population from harm. Please explain yourself !
.. stuff deleted ..
Wrong you must have missed the references that were quoted in this NG,
regarding the vedas that forbid meat eating also the references see the
following homepage for an extensive number of quotes :
Please stop trying to redefine the Kshatriya tradition to your liking.
Please explain why Rama went to hunt the golden deer. Why did he
insist on keeping arms despite Sita's objections? Why did he refuse
to stay with certain sages as he may offend them with his hunting
etc. ? Had he not read the Vedas or didn't he care ? Or perhaps
those who cared about it wrote it in the Vedas and those who didn't
didn't bother saying anything. Why did Vishwamitra name an
astrological entity after Trishanku who furnished meat for his family
? Did he not know about the Vedas ?
.. stuff deleted ..
>So I say eat cows and be prosperous.
You obviously know about the sad story of Australia where for this reason
we have salation of our soils and soil degredation. You certainly are aware
of the problems in South America due to the beef industry.
Prosper for how long ?
You obviously do not know the sad story of India where we have many
more problems than the salation of soil. Australia is still a very
prosperous country compared to many parts of the world Mr. Sethi.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE92...@netcom.com> nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com (Kunal Singh) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
Viswamitra was a non-vegetarian and ate meat, this is mentioned in
several places in the Puranas. Once he even ate dog's meat when none
other was available. Secondly in the legends of Parasurama, in the
Brahma Purana, it clearly states that the Haihaya king ate cows and in
one place mentions that it was customary in Magadha to eat cows. The
similarity between Vishwamitra's story and Parasurama's story is
obvious.
Secondly Viswamitra was travelling with his army or hunting party when
he arrived at Vasishta's ashram. Once he did, the story goes that
Vasishta couldn't understand why should Viswamitra "take the cow" when
the cow would give him all the food he needed -- milk etc. Viswamitra
was pressed for meat probably because he was travelling with others.
Mr. Tiwari should also know that at the time, there was very little
game around. The Purana describes it as a some sort of a dry spell
for hunting, though it doesn't give a reason. Later Viswamitra was
quite grateful to Trisanku for providing meat for his family when he
was away.
I wanted to add that Satyavrata, later known as Trishanku, also killed
a cow and fed the meat to Vishwamitra's family during the time when
wild game was scarce. He actually killed Vasistha's cow and Vasistha
was furious with him for it. Since Vishwamitra wasn't furious with
him for feeding the meat of cows to his family, we can assume that he
did not object to the killing and eating of cows.
M Suresh
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 Kunal Singh (nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com) wrote:
> In article <ghenE8z...@netcom.com> M Suresh <msu...@india.ti.com> writes:
>
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> There is a gradation of jiva's or souls. Killing a higher life form
> causes more suffering than killing a lower life form. For example
> the lives of bacteria lost during breathing or consuming curd is not
> the same as the life of a cow. Such a gradation could be
>
> Matter < Cellular life < plants < small animals < animals < cow < man
>
> So this way eating beef is more sinful than eating mutton :-).
>
> No one can live without directly and indirectly contributing to
> killing of living things. The thing is each person should try to
> lessen the killing and suffering of living things in whatever
> practical way he can without glorifying himself indirectly by
> critisizing others or by justifying his own mode of living.
>
> To quote the Buddha, who himself on occasion ate meat, "if eating
> grass were to provide religious merit, deer would reach heaven before
> man."
This is yet another example of using a quote for the wrong reason
which is sometimes seen in srh/srv. The quote is meant for
vegetarians not to become proud of themselves and start condemning
non-vegetarianism. It cannot be for justifying non-vegetarianism
because buddha himself advocated ahimsa.
While begging the principle buddhist monks used to adopt is that
they eat whatever that the house where they beg can spare for them.
Even if it is meat throwing it away does not help since it is
already dead and they did not cause the killing of the animal since
it was not specially made for them. Buddha would have eaten meat in
such a context.
Similarly Swami Vivekanda & Ramakrishna Paramahamsa have been
critisised for advocating meat, alcohol and tobacco. I feel they
only pointed out that feeling superior and taking on a self
appointed duty of reforming others just because one has been
conveintly born and brought up in circumstances appropriate to
abstinence is not correct.
Instead the relevant quotes which seem to be against abstinence are
used by people to take pot shots at them and worse by people
addicted to these things to justify themselves and feel cosy and
comfortable about themselves.
Swami Vivekanda himself has said that one would lose the greed for
meat and start preferring vegetarian food when he advances
spiritually.
> Thus this relationship that Mr. Suresh has established can be
> easily countered by saying that the least harm is obviously caused by
> matter so it is must attain heaven before man!
I was talking about man causing harm to other living things mainly
from an ethical angle and not about man or other living things
attaining heaven or hell.
To answer your question directly, Merit and sin is not only
associated with action but also the knowledge, attitude and
sincerity that is behind the action. Therefore lower level things
do not attain merit/sin because they do things mechanically, but man
does because he can discriminate between right and wrong and is thus
responsible for his actions.
> And yet Vaishnavism
> believes man to be the highest form why ? So what if he has
> intelligence, obviously you could obtain religious merit by eating
> grass!
If you eat grass not to attain religious merit, not to prove a
point, but because you genuinely cannot bear any harm caused to
living things and also if you are a devotee of the lord you will
definitely attain very great religious merit.
But I think that these things are not possible for anyone.
regards,
Suresh.
N. Tiwari
Kunal Singh (nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com) wrote:
: In article <ghenE92...@netcom.com> nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com (Kunal Singh) writes:
: I wanted to add that Satyavrata, later known as Trishanku, also killed
: a cow and fed the meat to Vishwamitra's family during the time when
: wild game was scarce. He actually killed Vasistha's cow and Vasistha
: was furious with him for it. Since Vishwamitra wasn't furious with
: him for feeding the meat of cows to his family, we can assume that he
: did not object to the killing and eating of cows.
: --
Hardly so. Firstly, I have forgotten the reason, why Trishanku
was rejected by Vashishtha. Secondly, assuming your charge of
his cow killing, is accurate, Vishwamitra's acceptance of Trishanku
does not imply the condoning of Trishanku's acts. The times
when Vishvamitra accepted Trishanku, were when he was quite
arrogant, and felt like that he had to prove a point. That
is very natural, since he was a new knower of lots of new
things at that times. So, he felt like that he could create
a universe of his own, and put the king in it. His efforts
hardly succeeded, since his plans were against certain cosmic
laws. Finally, he realized his errors. The result was that
the king Trishanku still is said to hang in between the
earth and heavens as Trishanku nakshatra. The story of
Trishanku tells us two things.
a) That betrayal of your own, with a view to get undue
favors from others, is not a good idea.
b) No matter who you are, no one has been allowed to
bend Dharmic laws of universe. Not even Shiva or Vishnu
have played with these laws. Wheneve, Shiva or Vishnu
have appeared on earth, they themselves have subscribed
to their own laws.
Further, Shiva has given boons to all sorts of persons. From
Ravan to all people, whosoeve have prayed him. This does not
mean, that the acts of these folks were condoned by Shiva.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE95...@netcom.com> M Suresh <msu...@india.ti.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> There is a gradation of jiva's or souls. Killing a higher life form
> causes more suffering than killing a lower life form. For example
> the lives of bacteria lost during breathing or consuming curd is not
> the same as the life of a cow. Such a gradation could be
>
> Matter < Cellular life < plants < small animals < animals < cow < man
.. stuff deleted ..
> To quote the Buddha, who himself on occasion ate meat, "if eating
> grass were to provide religious merit, deer would reach heaven before
> man."
This is yet another example of using a quote for the wrong reason
which is sometimes seen in srh/srv. The quote is meant for
vegetarians not to become proud of themselves and start condemning
non-vegetarianism. It cannot be for justifying non-vegetarianism
because buddha himself advocated ahimsa.
That is a matter of debate. The fact remains that Buddha was a
non-vegetarian by the definition of vegetarians today. He was
indifferent to meat or vegetables but vegetarians have a strong
aversion towards meat.
.. stuff deleted ..
To answer your question directly, Merit and sin is not only
associated with action but also the knowledge, attitude and
sincerity that is behind the action. Therefore lower level things
do not attain merit/sin because they do things mechanically, but man
does because he can discriminate between right and wrong and is thus
responsible for his actions.
Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
higher levels ? (Puranically, things like this are expressed as "thus
Vishnu was frozen and could not move. ;-)).
If only man has intelligence and only he incurs sin, then only man
could evolve either into a lower or higher form! No? Of course in
your model he would just get stuck in the lower form because he won't
be able to ever incur merit ever again. Is that your model? I want
to first establish a common understanding of your theory.
The second question that arises with such models which allow
independence to the great "thinking human beings" is that why would we
have independence ? Why would God give us independence ? Does that
not make him less powerful ? Or does he want to torture us ?
> And yet Vaishnavism
> believes man to be the highest form why ? So what if he has
> intelligence, obviously you could obtain religious merit by eating
> grass!
If you eat grass not to attain religious merit, not to prove a
point, but because you genuinely cannot bear any harm caused to
living things and also if you are a devotee of the lord you will
definitely attain very great religious merit.
Let me get this straight. First you claim that you must not eat grass
to attain religious merit, but because you cannot bear any harm done
to a living thing. But if you do eat grass, and believe in the Lord
then you WILL get religious merit. Is that what you want to say ?
Thus you do not wish things to die and exhibit a great fear of things
dying. Thus please explain what harm can I cause to another thing,
should it "die"! How is dying equivalent to "harm" in your
philosophy. Should I die naturally, is that harmful to my future
karma ? Who bears the bad karma for my so called "natural" death ?
Does not your Lord cause it ?
And yet the Upanisads say that the entire Universe is food and all
entities in it are food! I wonder if that is true, what do you think
?
Rajesh J. Gajjar
Here's a link that will interest everyone following this thread:
http://www.hindunet.org/vegetarian/
Some of my personal thoughts on this topic:
> indifferent to meat or vegetables but vegetarians have a strong
> aversion towards meat.
Yes, this is certainly true of many, if not all vegetarians. However, I
can share with you something that is more interesting. I persuaded some of
me meat-eating friends who were giving me a difficult time about my
vegetarianism to visit an abatoir. It really amazed me to see how
traumatic it turned out to be for them. Most did not complete the tour.
ALL abstained from meat for a period, some for as long as 3 months. These
people are all from families who have been eating meat for generations.
All of them did eventually return to eating meat, but they stopped giving
me a hard time, so something good came out of it.
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
My understanding is that lower lifeforms, advance to the next higher level
automatically. Take the example of a tiger. It's nature is to kill
brutally, but does not incur sin as a human would. However, during this
life, the soul's desire to kill brutally is removed and then the soul
graduates to a higher lifeform.
The last point that I wish to make is to do with Hindu scriptures.
Everyone's aware of the fact that there are volumes and volumes - Vedas,
Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, etc. I wish to make it clear that I am in no
position to provide an expert treatise on any of these scriptures.
My belief is that these scriptures are recordings of people, places, events
and thoughts, made by people and did not fall out of the sky, completely
written by God. It is for this reason that there are so many
contradictions. So, somewhere in the scriptures it is mentioned Dasratha
was hunting deer, elsewhere the scriptures state clearly that one must not
kill. My conscience makes me add far more importance and weight to the
latter. The fact that Dasratha was hunting deer has absolutely no bearing
on me. Dasratha did that and I don't agree with it, so I won't do it.
Therefore lifestyles, and thoughts, of many sages or kings or ordinary
people discribed in the scriptures do not determine my lifestyle. Yes, a
lot of it do influence my lifestyle, but certainly not each and everything.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE98...@netcom.com> nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) writes:
Kunal Singh (nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com) wrote:
: In article <ghenE92...@netcom.com> nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com (Kunal Singh) writes:
: I wanted to add that Satyavrata, later known as Trishanku, also killed
: a cow and fed the meat to Vishwamitra's family during the time when
: wild game was scarce. He actually killed Vasistha's cow and Vasistha
: was furious with him for it. Since Vishwamitra wasn't furious with
: him for feeding the meat of cows to his family, we can assume that he
: did not object to the killing and eating of cows.
: --
Hardly so.
Quite so, Mr. Tiwari.
Firstly, I have forgotten the reason, why Trishanku
was rejected by Vashishtha.
It was due to three reasons, one of them being his stealing of several
men's wives before the seventh step that completed the marriage
ceremony -- thus he claimed that he had never stolen anyone's "wife"
as the ceremony had not been complete. Altogether, he had three
charges against him, thus the term Tri-shanku. I think one of the
reasons was eating Vasistha's cow, but I'm not sure.
Secondly, assuming your charge of
his cow killing, is accurate, Vishwamitra's acceptance of Trishanku
does not imply the condoning of Trishanku's acts. The times
when Vishvamitra accepted Trishanku, were when he was quite
arrogant, and felt like that he had to prove a point. That
And yet he was a sage, whether he was arrogant or a challenger to the
system is dependent on the person viewing his acts. Your claim was
that no sage ever condoned the killing of cows. And thus your claim
is disproven.
What do you have to say about the issue of the birth of Magadha where
they ceremoniously sacrificed a cow ? Are you claiming that no sage
was present during the occasion ?
Secondly, you have to know the character of Viswamitra before you
presume that he would object to killing cows! Once Viswamitra asked
his followers to get any food for a sacrifice, and he meant anything!
His disciples/followers returned with a dead dog! So he decided to
offer the meat of the dog to Indra and the Devas. The followers of
the Vaishnava deities naturally objected. It was said that Indra
stole the dead dog, replacing it with nectar so that the other Devas
may not be fed meat! Quite far from being pleased, Viswamitra was
furious, he insisted on using dog's meat! His fury was appeased only
after great trouble. Thus you have to know the personality that you're
dealing with before you presume such nonsense! Please do not ascribe
Vaisnava finickiness to Viswamitra! He was too brilliant to consider
cows sacred or a taxi to heaven!
Here's a story to counter the Vaisnava belief that all the Ikshvakus
were vegetarian. For Vasistha, though he was certainly not as
revolutionary as Viswamitra, was certainly not a pure Vaishnava. He
retained the sacredness of the cow and the four-fold division of
society which are Vaishnava beliefs. But that he offered meat in
sacrifices is quite well known. The first king Ikshvaku himself had
ordered the sacrifice and Vasistha had in preparation asked for
several animals from the forest. One of the king's sons ate a rabbit,
and he was severely censured by Vasistha for it. Vasistha was a
Vaishnava in the regard that he regarded rules quite highly. I
wouldn't be surprised if Ayodhya did set castism and Manuvadism in
motion! It had become politically quite prominent at a certain time,
particularly during Sagara!
is very natural, since he was a new knower of lots of new
things at that times. So, he felt like that he could create
a universe of his own, and put the king in it. His efforts
hardly succeeded, since his plans were against certain cosmic
laws. Finally, he realized his errors. The result was that
the king Trishanku still is said to hang in between the
earth and heavens as Trishanku nakshatra. The story of
Trishanku tells us two things.
Incorrect. You are mis-quoting, not only mis-interpreting, the
story. The story is that Trishanku's raising to the EXISTING heaven
was opposed by all the Devas -- not the first time Viswamitra caused
grave concern to the Devas by his rather novel practices. Thus
Viswamitra said that he would create a heaven around Trishanku and in
that he was said to have succeeded.
a) That betrayal of your own, with a view to get undue
favors from others, is not a good idea.
The story of Trishanku tells us only one thing. That cow-eating kings
can go to heaven while in their material bodies. I don't think having
a nakshatra named after you is all that bad, frankly. Trishanku is
thus immortal! He even regained his rightful throne, thanks to
Viswamitra. At one time Vasistha had taken over the kingdom by
convincing his father to leave for the forest for a period of 12
years! He even maintained the harems! Satyavrata is subsequently
described as quite heroic and an able ruler! Hariscandra was
subsequently born to him.
And lastly, gaining favors of deities, sages and kings is a very
common theme in stories of Vedic times. It is indeed a very good
idea!
b) No matter who you are, no one has been allowed to
bend Dharmic laws of universe. Not even Shiva or Vishnu
have played with these laws. Wheneve, Shiva or Vishnu
have appeared on earth, they themselves have subscribed
to their own laws.
The whole issue is what are the "dharmic" laws of the universe ? If
tomorrow some Vaishnava declare that a goat is sacred does not mean
that Shaivites will accept it! What do you mean that no incarnation
of Shiva or Vishnu has "bent" the dharmic laws ? It could have
something to do with the fact that only those men were given the
status of being their incarnations that agreed with the practices and
beliefs of the respective schools!
Further, Shiva has given boons to all sorts of persons. From
Ravan to all people, whosoeve have prayed him. This does not
mean, that the acts of these folks were condoned by Shiva.
Yes, Shiva has also given boons to Vishnu in the form of the
Sudarshan. Shaivites in general have been less judgemental than
Vaishnavs and that is why they succeeded in attaining to the Brahman
and defeating the Vaishnavas who still held onto their dharmic cows'
tail to get to heaven.
M Suresh
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 Kunal Singh (nny...@swap31-236.ny.ubs.com) wrote:
> In article <ghenE95...@netcom.com> M Suresh <msu...@india.ti.com> writes:
>
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> > .. stuff deleted ..
> >
> > There is a gradation of jiva's or souls. Killing a higher life form
> > causes more suffering than killing a lower life form. For example
> > the lives of bacteria lost during breathing or consuming curd is not
> > the same as the life of a cow. Such a gradation could be
> >
> > Matter < Cellular life < plants < small animals < animals < cow < man
>
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> > To quote the Buddha, who himself on occasion ate meat, "if eating
> > grass were to provide religious merit, deer would reach heaven before
> > man."
>
> This is yet another example of using a quote for the wrong reason
> which is sometimes seen in srh/srv. The quote is meant for
> vegetarians not to become proud of themselves and start condemning
> non-vegetarianism. It cannot be for justifying non-vegetarianism
> because buddha himself advocated ahimsa.
>
> That is a matter of debate. The fact remains that Buddha was a
> non-vegetarian by the definition of vegetarians today.
There is no point in trying to dilute the fact that Buddha advocated
ahimsa and advocated compassion to all living beings. In fact he
was against animal sacrifice.
> He was
> indifferent to meat or vegetables but vegetarians have a strong
> aversion towards meat.
Everybody is not a Buddha. As I pointed out he ate meat because it
was offered to him unlike having a regular non-veg diet. Similiarly
Shirdi Sai Baba drank liquor when it was offered to him. This
cannot be taken as a green signal for all drunkards. In that case
drunkards should be able to drink molten iron which also Sai Baba
did when it was offered to him. Similiarly I have read in srv or
srh that Meera Bai said that if abstaining from sex can lead one to
God then eunuchs would be the first to attain him. This sounds
similiar to your Buddha quote. But it should not be taken as an
encouragement of immorality. Such quotes should be taken in the
right spirit and not as aids to hypocrisy.
And there is no harm in having aversion to meat if you have not
tasted it at all. It is natural. One has so many aversions.
Trying out all of them is not the solution to becoming indifferent
to them. One cannot become a jnani like Buddha just by imitating
him. It would be like a crow sporting peacock feathers.
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> To answer your question directly, Merit and sin is not only
> associated with action but also the knowledge, attitude and
> sincerity that is behind the action. Therefore lower level things
> do not attain merit/sin because they do things mechanically, but man
> does because he can discriminate between right and wrong and is thus
> responsible for his actions.
>
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
> higher levels ? (Puranically, things like this are expressed as "thus
> Vishnu was frozen and could not move. ;-)).
Nature takes care of their evolution.
> If only man has intelligence and only he incurs sin, then only man
> could evolve either into a lower or higher form! No? Of course in
> your model he would just get stuck in the lower form because he won't
> be able to ever incur merit ever again. Is that your model? I want
> to first establish a common understanding of your theory.
Suffering for sins need not be by a permanent reverse in evolution.
In fact one can suffer more as being born as a man.
> The second question that arises with such models which allow
> independence to the great "thinking human beings" is that why would we
> have independence ? Why would God give us independence ? Does that
> not make him less powerful ? Or does he want to torture us ?
All this is god's leela and beyond our comprehension through
questions like why? In other words I cannot explain why :-).
> > And yet Vaishnavism
> > believes man to be the highest form why ? So what if he has
> > intelligence, obviously you could obtain religious merit by eating
> > grass!
>
> If you eat grass not to attain religious merit, not to prove a
> point, but because you genuinely cannot bear any harm caused to
> living things and also if you are a devotee of the lord you will
> definitely attain very great religious merit.
>
> Let me get this straight. First you claim that you must not eat grass
> to attain religious merit, but because you cannot bear any harm done
> to a living thing. But if you do eat grass, and believe in the Lord
> then you WILL get religious merit. Is that what you want to say ?
Yes.
> Thus you do not wish things to die and exhibit a great fear of things
> dying. Thus please explain what harm can I cause to another thing,
> should it "die"!
Everybody fears death and goes through suffering while dying. So
killing another causes harm because it undergoes suffering. If you
are hinting at "Atma never dies" and all that stuff, it should be
applied for the right reasons and not for enjoyment of non-veg.
> How is dying equivalent to "harm" in your
> philosophy. Should I die naturally, is that harmful to my future
> karma ? Who bears the bad karma for my so called "natural" death ?
> Does not your Lord cause it ?
Natural death is inevitable. Birth and death is part of our own
karma.
> And yet the Upanisads say that the entire Universe is food and all
> entities in it are food! I wonder if that is true, what do you think
> ?
I have not heard of this. It sounds like the christian concept
that all creatures are made for man. Anyway it is better to accept
positive things first and accept other things only after a proper
understanding.
regards,
Suresh.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9D...@netcom.com> "Rajesh J. Gajjar" <ra...@iafrica.com> writes:
As I've responded to Mr. Gajjar, if he does not give weight to
scriptures or does so selectively, that is fine. However, anyone who
claims the scriptures as their authority must explain the discrepancy
between the life of that person whom he worships and the lifestyle
suggested to the devotees.
The fact remains that even Vasishta the Rajguru of Ayodhya and thus
Rama, used animals in his sacrifices. Yes it is mentioned in the
Skanda Purana.
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9D...@netcom.com> "Rajesh J. Gajjar" <ra...@iafrica.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
My understanding is that lower lifeforms, advance to the next higher level
automatically. Take the example of a tiger. It's nature is to kill
brutally, but does not incur sin as a human would. However, during this
life, the soul's desire to kill brutally is removed and then the soul
graduates to a higher lifeform.
The deer has no such desire to kill, so why is it introduced into the
lion in the first place ? Obviously many lower lifeforms do not have
such a "desire to kill" as perceived by human beings so what causes
them to acquire this desire "automatically" ? And that too as they
evolve higher up in this chain ? If all animals are equivalent in
terms of religious merit (contradiction of the previous poster's
partial ordering), then what makes the cow significantly special ?
Look, we can attack this silly materialist theory twenty different
ways, and it will still come out as unstable as it started.
For this reason, Vishnu the primary deity of Vaishnavism often assumes
the form of "Mohini." Mohini comes from "moha" or attachment. Mohini
is a pleasing figure, expressed generally in Puranic legends as a
beautiful woman. She gets what she wants not by reasoning or any
attempt to unearth the truth, but by APPEALING to the desires of the
people. Many times Vishnu had to resort to his "Mohini" form to
rescue Vaishnav deities from being obliterated by Shaivite Asuras
(competing deities). Thus Vaishnavism is and has survied as a set of
attachments that appeal to people.
Thus you have the theory of higher vs lower life forms and the concept
of minimum violence and the notion of maximum peace. All these
concepts are appealing because they address only one side of the
equation. If someone gets killed in nature someone else gets fed! In
Vaishnavism each devotee has his own concept of "peace", "minimum
violence", and justice for all! The notions are appealing, but
without philosophical substance! They all have their foundations in
"moha" or emotional attachments. From my discussions with several
Vaishnavs it has become apparent to me that Vishnu is truly Mohini!
And he has them spellbound!
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9D...@netcom.com> "Rajesh J. Gajjar" <ra...@iafrica.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
My understanding is that lower lifeforms, advance to the next higher level
automatically. Take the example of a tiger. It's nature is to kill
brutally, but does not incur sin as a human would. However, during this
life, the soul's desire to kill brutally is removed and then the soul
graduates to a higher lifeform.
In that case all "lower" lifeforms would be equivalent. There can't
be a hierarchy between them at least related to religious merit. That
leaves only the human form as different, which seems unfortunate as to
be provided independence. Why does he not automatically advance to
union with God ? Is that where it ends ? Secondly where does this
sequence of lifeforms begin ?
.. stuff deleted ..
My belief is that these scriptures are recordings of people, places, events
and thoughts, made by people and did not fall out of the sky, completely
written by God. It is for this reason that there are so many
contradictions. So, somewhere in the scriptures it is mentioned Dasratha
was hunting deer, elsewhere the scriptures state clearly that one must not
kill. My conscience makes me add far more importance and weight to the
latter. The fact that Dasratha was hunting deer has absolutely no bearing
on me. Dasratha did that and I don't agree with it, so I won't do it.
Therefore lifestyles, and thoughts, of many sages or kings or ordinary
people discribed in the scriptures do not determine my lifestyle. Yes, a
lot of it do influence my lifestyle, but certainly not each and everything.
That is fine. If you do not take scriptures literally, you can make
your own judgements. But if you do rely on the scriptures to convince
others, then you must explain away the contradictions, it becomes a
requirement due to the weight attached to scriptural teachings. Thus
if a Vaishnava says that Rama or Krishna must be worshipped and all
their devotees must be vegetarian, it becomes absurd! That is because
there is no correlation between the lifestyle of Rama or Krishna and
that recommended to the devotee.
Rajesh J. Gajjar
> if a Vaishnava says that Rama or Krishna must be worshipped and all
> their devotees must be vegetarian, it becomes absurd! That is because
> there is no correlation between the lifestyle of Rama or Krishna and
> that recommended to the devotee.
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. Forgive me, but I just joined
this group.
Here's a question, just a question, nothing more. Are you saying that Rama
or Krishna ate meat? If so, what makes you say so? If not, what exactly
about their lifestyles are you referring to?
Regards,
Raju
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9q...@netcom.com> "Rajesh J. Gajjar" <ra...@iafrica.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> if a Vaishnava says that Rama or Krishna must be worshipped and all
> their devotees must be vegetarian, it becomes absurd! That is because
> there is no correlation between the lifestyle of Rama or Krishna and
> that recommended to the devotee.
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. Forgive me, but I just joined
this group.
Here's a question, just a question, nothing more. Are you saying that Rama
or Krishna ate meat? If so, what makes you say so? If not, what exactly
about their lifestyles are you referring to?
Rama was definitely a non-vegetarian, I'm still not sure about
Krishna. Rama's entire dynasty was non-vegetarian, starting from
Ikshvaku himself who used to have Vasistha conduct yagnas where he
sacrificed animals. Satyavrata(Trishanku) ate beef, Hariscandra was
hunting during his encounter with Viswamitra, likewise Dasratha was
known to also have hunted. Rama was also a hunter, as despite Sita's
repeated requests, he refused to give up his weapons in the forest and
at one time did not stay with a certain group of sages saying that his
hunting may disturb them. His hunt for the golden deer is obvious,
thus Sita did not have qualms about hunting either, though she seemed
acutely aware of the fact that hunting was not a part of "ascetic"
life. Thus I'm sure that Rama was a non-vegetarian.
Buddha who was the Sakyamuni, the Sakyas also being descended from the
Ikshvakus, was likewise non-vegetarian, and was even well-versed in
martial arts. Legends say that he had killed an elephant in his youth
during his training.
As for Krishna I'll have to check the details, but if their descent is
indicative of culture, Yayati the father of Yadu was also a hunter. I
would be most surprised if the Yadavs somehow afterward became pure
vegetarians!
Rajesh J. Gajjar
> As for Krishna I'll have to check the details, but if their descent is
> indicative of culture, Yayati the father of Yadu was also a hunter. I
> would be most surprised if the Yadavs somehow afterward became pure
> vegetarians!
No, I'm afraid that just because Ram hunted, does not make him a
non-vergetarian. Some people may consider that to be so, but it is totally
& completely wrong. If one hunts, one must be non-vergetarian? No way,
this argument is way too weak. I have a cousin who enjoys fishing with his
non-veg friends and he does take an active part, but he does not eat fish.
Regards,
Rajesh J Gajjar (South Africa)
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9D...@netcom.com> M Suresh <msu...@india.ti.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> That is a matter of debate. The fact remains that Buddha was a
> non-vegetarian by the definition of vegetarians today.
There is no point in trying to dilute the fact that Buddha advocated
ahimsa and advocated compassion to all living beings. In fact he
was against animal sacrifice.
Yes, but the actions of the man should be used together with his
teachings to ascertain the meaning of "ahimsa" and "compassion." The
man's actions provide the context in which he understood those terms
and thus how you should understand those terms.
Compassion for all living beings certainly did not prevent Gautama
Buddha from eating a non-vegetarian meal. And that remains a fact
that cannot be denied. Thus his notion of "ahimsa" and "compassion"
was quite different from that advocated today. Perhaps his compassion
was more well-balanced than the vegetarian approach who go around
insisting that no animal be killed at all! Why didn't Buddha go and
tell the guy who offered him the meat that he should not be eating
meat ?
> He was
> indifferent to meat or vegetables but vegetarians have a strong
> aversion towards meat.
Everybody is not a Buddha. As I pointed out he ate meat because it
was offered to him unlike having a regular non-veg diet. Similiarly
Shirdi Sai Baba drank liquor when it was offered to him. This
cannot be taken as a green signal for all drunkards. In that case
drunkards should be able to drink molten iron which also Sai Baba
did when it was offered to him. Similiarly I have read in srv or
I'm not sure what you mean by the statement, that this can't be taken
as a "green signal." Why are you so concerned about other people
practicing drinking? And how did you equate drinking with drunkards ?
As for Shirdi Sai Baba drinking molten iron, that is a highly
questionable statement and I would require more proof than simply a
statement from you or another follower of Sai Baba.
srh that Meera Bai said that if abstaining from sex can lead one to
God then eunuchs would be the first to attain him. This sounds
similiar to your Buddha quote. But it should not be taken as an
encouragement of immorality. Such quotes should be taken in the
right spirit and not as aids to hypocrisy.
This does have relevance on the definition of "morality" or the
understanding of "morality" by great religious figures. Remarkably,
you keep insisting that people should not take either the actions or
the statements of great men/women to imitate. But despite such
actions they should interpret morality as you present it to them, that
such actions still constitute "immorality". Can you provide any
justification for your claim other than insistence ?
The fact remains that if Meera Bai said so, it is authoritative for
those following in her footsteps, similarly for Buddha. Buddha not
only made that statement but in my opinion was quite correct in making
the statement that eating grass cannot give one "religious merit."
Let's take a special case to illustrate why thinking is necessary
before proceeding on any religious path and why the actions of
religious figures must be accounted for. Let's assume that some yogi
says that a vegetarian diet is beneficial to practice of yoga and yoga
is beneficial in achieving union with the Brahman. Could that be
translated to saying that eating a vegetarian diet accords "religious
merit?" NO!. Those who make this mistake are misled and some may
believe that eating vegetables without practicing yoga would give them
the benefits of yoga! Secondly, does that preclude a non-vegetarian
from practicing yoga? No, not really, though according to the yogi,
he may make slower progress! Thirdly, can this be taken to mean that
a vegetarian diet is superior in an absolute sense ? No, again, for
the statement only pertains to the specialty of the person making that
statement. i.e. IT HAS TO BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT!
Thus the worship of any deity requires understanding and the use of
intelligence. For only intelligent understanding can lead one to
understanding the essence of the deity. Blind devotion can only lead
one in circles.
And there is no harm in having aversion to meat if you have not
tasted it at all. It is natural. One has so many aversions.
Having an aversion is equivalent to having hatred. Having a blind
aversion is a sign of stupidity for you cannot even prove the claim
that the vegetarian diet is beneficial to your health, because you
haven't tried anything different!
Trying out all of them is not the solution to becoming indifferent
to them. One cannot become a jnani like Buddha just by imitating
him. It would be like a crow sporting peacock feathers.
But if you do not wish to imitate Buddha, why worship him ? So you
could interpret him in your own context of preferences so that you
could worship yourself effectively ? Is that your end goal ?
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> To answer your question directly, Merit and sin is not only
> associated with action but also the knowledge, attitude and
> sincerity that is behind the action. Therefore lower level things
> do not attain merit/sin because they do things mechanically, but man
> does because he can discriminate between right and wrong and is thus
> responsible for his actions.
>
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
> higher levels ? (Puranically, things like this are expressed as "thus
> Vishnu was frozen and could not move. ;-)).
Nature takes care of their evolution.
This is a ridiculous statement. It is equivalent to hand-waving!
> If only man has intelligence and only he incurs sin, then only man
> could evolve either into a lower or higher form! No? Of course in
> your model he would just get stuck in the lower form because he won't
> be able to ever incur merit ever again. Is that your model? I want
> to first establish a common understanding of your theory.
Suffering for sins need not be by a permanent reverse in evolution.
In fact one can suffer more as being born as a man.
Then man is a "lower" form and not a "higher" form on the scale of
religious merit.
> The second question that arises with such models which allow
> independence to the great "thinking human beings" is that why would we
> have independence ? Why would God give us independence ? Does that
> not make him less powerful ? Or does he want to torture us ?
All this is god's leela and beyond our comprehension through
questions like why? In other words I cannot explain why :-).
NO DON'T BLAME IT ON SIMPLY GOD'S LEELA, IT IS THE WEAKNESS IN YOUR
PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK!
Contrary to what people believe these questions have been asked in
Bharat in the past. They were asked in direct opposition to
Vaishnavism resulting in the rise of materialists which were
eventually integrated into Shaivism with the birth of Parvati.
> > And yet Vaishnavism
> > believes man to be the highest form why ? So what if he has
> > intelligence, obviously you could obtain religious merit by eating
> > grass!
>
> If you eat grass not to attain religious merit, not to prove a
> point, but because you genuinely cannot bear any harm caused to
> living things and also if you are a devotee of the lord you will
> definitely attain very great religious merit.
>
> Let me get this straight. First you claim that you must not eat grass
> to attain religious merit, but because you cannot bear any harm done
> to a living thing. But if you do eat grass, and believe in the Lord
> then you WILL get religious merit. Is that what you want to say ?
Yes.
This is the height of irrationality!
> Thus you do not wish things to die and exhibit a great fear of things
> dying. Thus please explain what harm can I cause to another thing,
> should it "die"!
Everybody fears death and goes through suffering while dying. So
killing another causes harm because it undergoes suffering. If you
are hinting at "Atma never dies" and all that stuff, it should be
applied for the right reasons and not for enjoyment of non-veg.
> How is dying equivalent to "harm" in your
> philosophy. Should I die naturally, is that harmful to my future
> karma ? Who bears the bad karma for my so called "natural" death ?
> Does not your Lord cause it ?
Natural death is inevitable. Birth and death is part of our own
karma.
How is "natural" death different from "artificial" death. Please make
the distinction. Does someone who eats badly or is not able to earn
enough to eat well incur sin ? He could have lived longer, had he
done so. What do you consider a "natural" death vs an "artificial"
death. You make the discrimination, and I being a Shaivite will unite
the two.
> And yet the Upanisads say that the entire Universe is food and all
> entities in it are food! I wonder if that is true, what do you think
> ?
I have not heard of this. It sounds like the christian concept
that all creatures are made for man. Anyway it is better to accept
positive things first and accept other things only after a proper
understanding.
Incorrect! How have you translated the above to giving man a special
position in the universe! Nowhere does it say that man is not food
for the rest of the universe. Don't worry, germs are eating away at
you right now!
Kunal Singh
In article <ghenE9q...@netcom.com> "Rajesh J. Gajjar" <ra...@iafrica.com> writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
> The deer has no such desire to kill, so why is it introduced into the
> lion in the first place ? Obviously many lower lifeforms do not have
It is impossible to answer such a specific question with a single answer.
I can think of a number of reasons, but I certainly can't quote from
scriptures that will answer your question. My belief is that the deer
being killed brutally is a "container" for a soul that needed to experience
it because in a previous life that soul killed brutally without any need
i.e. in a human body, killing and torturing for pure pleasure. I can also
think of other reasons why the deer is "introduced to the lion".
I don't think you understood the question. Let's assume that the lion
or even man has the ability to kill and is 'higher' in your scale of
evolution by religious merit. Then what causes the desire for killing
to be introduced in higher forms ? That is a contradiction to the
very notion of that form being a "higher" one. It makes no sense at all.
.. stuff deleted ..
> Vaishnavs it has become apparent to me that Vishnu is truly Mohini!
> And he has them spellbound!
Well, you are certainly entitled to your *opinion*! And it is merely your
opinion, nothing more.
Let's elaborate a bit more on this subject. Everyone is usually
expected to justify his opinion on some ground or another when he
comes into contact with a differing opinion. Should someone fail to
do so rationally, he and the detractor has a right to know and make
note of the fact that the belief is mere emotion and nothing else!
And that is a significant discrimination!
I have no objection and cannot object rationally to anyone saying that
they view the cow as sacred because they have some emotional
attachment to the animal. But when someone comes up with a model to
support their views, they have to defend the model because such a
philosophical framework IMPLIES rationality.
And when someone comes up with scriptural quotes as the basis, they
have to explain contrary practices of "go-medha" of the Vedic period.
Just as horses were sacrificed during "ashwa-medha" cows were
sacrificed during "go-medha" (Skanda Purana).
THUS ANY CLAIM THAT ALL THE VEDIC PEOPLE REFRAINED FROM KILLING COWS
CAN EASILY BE REFUTED! I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT ALL THE PEOPLE
KILLED COWS, I ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE SEVERAL INSTANCES FOR YOUR
GENERALIZATION TO BECOME INVALID! AND THOSE I HAVE PROVIDED.