Hindu denominations

[Shuddhasattva]

But, why is killing the incarnation of a god more wrong than to kill any other human being? aren't we all part of god according to Hinduism? can't a god just come back in a new body if they have something important to do?

Andal-ji's post addressed this far better than mine did:

One who is a true Brahmana is a blessing to all living beings. The true Brahmana makes divine wisdom and experience available to the world. To kill a true Brahmana is not to kill one person but to steal from every being in the material world.

Also, another less important reason:

The magnitude of sin incurred by killing is proportional to the degree of consciousness of the victim. We are constantly killing god insofar as god is all living beings; bacteria, fungi, insects, etc. We kill plants, and if we are so inclined, animals, to sustain our own lives, de-facto prioritizing them based on a hierarchy of consciousness.

By contrast, a brahmana - a true one, a knower of Brahman ... our consciousness is less than that of an insect in comparison. Yes, God is not really inconvenienced by the death of but one avadhut, but all sins are against consciousness; all sins are defined by harming and limiting consciousness.

 

[Andal]

But, why is killing the incarnation of a god more wrong than to kill any other human being? aren't we all part of god according to Hinduism? can't a god just come back in a new body if they have something important to do?

See my statement above about stealing from every living being

Add on top of that the type of ignorance and darkness that must cloud someone enough to make them want to kill an emanation of the divine. The karma incurred by such action has just as much to do with the state of the killer as it does the one being killed. For example there is a different degree of hatred between someone who kills another because a debt is owed verses some one who kills their mother. Both actions are wrong and surely the debter and mother both have value as humans and yet in the mind of the killer there must be a different degree of ignorance

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Polarbear]

Okay, but are plants concious at all in Hinduism's view? Is it wrong to kill them?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Yes, it is.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Yes, it is.

I suppose I should start offering my food again...

 

[Jainarayan]

Okay, but are plants concious at all in Hinduism's view? Is it wrong to kill them?

Yes, it is.

That's especially prominent in Jainism. Jains will not eat any plant, fruit or vegetable that does not give of itself willingly. No carrots, turnips, peanuts, cabbage, lettuce... because to harvest those kills the plant.

 

[Vinayaka]

Okay, but are plants concious at all in Hinduism's view? Is it wrong to kill them?

Once again, and its a bit tiring reiterating this, (not to you Polar Bear) but there are many points of view. The fact of the matter is many Hindus are non-vegetarian even. Lots of Hindus eat root vegetables, onion garlic, use milk, etc, etc. When you ask a question with 'in Hinduism's view' in it, there is no standard answer. You might as well just ask it to a standard audience of all people on the planet. Hinduism is a misnomer to start with. India is like Europe, 21 official languages or something like that. Try putting Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Druze, Zoroastrianism all under one banner, called Jerusalamism, or some other term of your choice, and that still wouldn't come close to paralleling the vastness under the Hindu umbrella.

Maybe a better way to phrase such questions would be: "In your particular branch of Hinduism, what is the standard view?" Even then you'll get different answers, because ours is primarily an experiential religion, not one based on set established doctrines. Yes there are set established doctrines, but they also are sectarian in nature, and open to interpretation.

 

[Jainarayan]

You know what I always say, "900 million Hindus, 900 million opinions".

 

[Vinayaka]

You know what I always say, "900 million Hindus, 900 million opinions".

I think its over a billion now, so you're wrong. :no: Oops ... I errored. I shouldn't have started the sentence with 'I think" It should just be. "You're wrong. It's over a billion now. "

 

[nameless]

Okay, but are plants concious at all in Hinduism's view? Is it wrong to kill them?

we are also products of nature, so has a purpose, it is also wrong to kill ourselves of starvation. So the possible solution is to 'eat to live,not live to eat', causing minimum suffering to nature, and in return do some good to the world, thus there will be mutual progress.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

we are also products of nature, so has a purpose, it is also wrong to kill ourselves by starvation. So the possible solution is to 'eat to live,not live to eat' causing minimum suffering to nature, and in return do some good to the world, thus there will be mutual progress.

That is a very practical and correct approach. We are products of nature. Our bodies are sustained on food grains. We should eat to live and not live to eat.

The solution given by Supreme Lord Krṣṇa in the Bhagavad Gītā, is to offer what we eat to Supreme Lord first - (as sacrifice) and then eat (honor) the remnants.

yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo
mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ
bhuñjate te tv aghaḿ pāpā
ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt​

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 only sin. [B.G. 3.13]

annād bhavanti bhūtāni
parjanyād anna-sambhavaḥ
yajñād bhavati parjanyo
yajñaḥ karma-samudbhavaḥ​

All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of yajña [sacrifice], and yajña is born of prescribed duties.[B.G. 3.14]

Thus, sacrifice for Supreme Lord (offering food to Lord), will release us from the sin of killing a plant, who is equally dear - like you, me, animal, tree...anybody, to the Supreme Lord.

 

[Polarbear]

I think its over a billion now, so you're wrong. :no: Oops ... I errored. I shouldn't have started the sentence with 'I think" It should just be. "You're wrong. It's over a billion now. "

Can you please cite your sources? Thank you in advance.

 

[Vinayaka]

Can you please cite your sources? Thank you in advance.

I can't remember just now, but trust me, they're reliable!

 

[Jainarayan]

I think its over a billion now, so you're wrong. :no: Oops ... I errored. I shouldn't have started the sentence with 'I think" It should just be. "You're wrong. It's over a billion now. "

You're probably right. Time to update my cliché, much like encyclopedias and censuses are updated periodically. But I'll round it off to 1 billion: "1 billion Hindus, 1 billion opinions".

 

[Jainarayan]

Can you please cite your sources? Thank you in advance.

I can't remember just now, but trust me, they're reliable!

I use Major Religions Ranked by Size

4. Hinduism: 900 million

 

[Polarbear]

And how often is that site updated?

 

[Jainarayan]

Unfortunately, I don't think very often.

Edit: definitely not very often.

Webpage created circa January 2000. Last modified 9 August 2007.
Copyright © 2007 by Adherents.com.

Hinduism: The highest figure we've seen for Hinduism (1.4 billion, Clarke, Peter B., editor), The Religions of the World: Understanding the Living Faiths, Marshall Editions Limited: USA (1993); pg. 125.) is actually higher than the highest figure we've seen for Islam. But this is an abberation. World Hinduism adherent figures are usually between 850 million and one billion. More.

 

[Polarbear]

Well 12 years is an old age for a census that probably wasn't too accurate to begin with. I mean there is no way one can get precise demographics of the entire world.

 

[Jainarayan]

No, and they admit that on the site. It's a pretty interesting read though.