Hindus and beef

[Scimitar]

As a Muslim, I want to apologise to the Hindu's here about the Muslims in India who killed cows in a village in Gujurat state where it is unlawful to do so.

I abhor that act and believe it was unnecessary and caused much animosity between peoples of two faiths.

For the record, it is not required for a Muslim to kill a cow for sacrificial reasons - the actual animal is a goat or lamb which is supposed to be sacrificed. However, they may sacrifice a cow if they want to - but in the case of Gujurat, the Muslims should really only be sacrificing goats and lambs and sheep.

Anyway guys - I am sorry for what happened...

Scimi

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not a matter of personal opinion. You've always made it clear that your comments are your beliefs and that no one else is bound by them. But the o.p. isn't a personal opinion, rather, it's an argument from authority, citing scriptures which are constantly being re-interpreted. There are too many in-your-face proclamations by a number of people who seem to have anointed themselves as arbiters of what is Hindu and what is not, not only about beef. I understand it's a cultural tradition and taboo to not eat beef, and I can respect that. But the scriptures are contradictory on a great number of subjects.

 

[George-ananda]

I've said this before and I still believe it: there is an inherent hypocrisy in vegetarianism, saying it's the better way. Belts, shoes, wallets, medication capsules all come from dead cows; milk and milk products come from cows that are going to be slaughtered. If you wear jeans the tag on the waistband is leather. The business of claiming to "minimize harm" just doesn't fly. Either you're contributing to the harm of animals or you are not. The only way that comes anywhere near these claims is full-on, full-bore vegan. The claims of spiritual progress don't fly either because you're contributing to the harm of animals or you are not. Taking on the characteristics of the animal doesn't work either. Were that the case, beef eaters should be among the most docile and gentle people in the world. Do what you (impersonal, plural) want to, don't do what you (impersonal, plural) don't want to, but let's stop kidding ourselves. One way is not better than another: one man's meat (no pun intended) is another man's poison; one man's junk is another man's treasure. Now I realize that this is about Hindus and beef, and this subject always turns into a debate, but given that it's in Comparative Religion, are we comparing Hindus and beef to something? Or are "we" just promoting abstention from beef as a morally high ideal?

I see it this way; Normal vegetarianism is better than being a meat-eater. Full-on, full-bore veganism is better than normal vegetarianism.

I think typical vegetarianism is then a big step in the right direction still. I don't think there would be 20 million raised for slaughter pigs in Iowa if we were all just normal vegetarians.

Basically, the 'perfect' or 'nothing' argument does stand up to reason.

 

[Jainarayan]

I see it this way; Normal vegetarianism is better than being a meat-eater. ...

Basically, the 'perfect' or 'nothing' argument does stand up to reason.

Neither does the one-size-fits-all thinking about vegetarianism, that everyone can do it. That is false. Some people simply do not thrive on vegetarian diets. Normal vegetarianism is not always better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. For those people it is a step in the wrong direction. This is what people who promote vegetarianism fail to understand, yet they push it as the better way... not always.

 

[Poeticus]

But we had a nice exchange of views.

What we had, Aup-dada, was a thread in the wrong place with an OP that offered no substantial comparison that ultimately failed, in the end, to legitimate this thread---not to mention the numerous amount of similar threads that already exist on RF and have had similar subjects talked about ad nauseam.

 

[Chakra]

I understand it's a cultural tradition and taboo to not eat beef, and I can respect that. But the scriptures are contradictory on a great number of subjects.

To accept all the scriptures as true would be ridiculous, as some directly contradict each other, like you said. Only some of the scriptures are to be used, since they are of Sattvik quality. And they are unanimous in their support for vegetarianism.

 

[Chakra]

Neither does the one-size-fits-all thinking about vegetarianism, that everyone can do it. That is false. Some people simply do not thrive on vegetarian diets. Normal vegetarianism is not always better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. For those people it is a step in the wrong direction. This is what people who promote vegetarianism fail to understand, yet they push it as the better way... not always.

This falls into the question whether humans were originally meat-eaters or not, which is still a debatable topic. I guess once there is an unanimous agreement, then we will find out whether "normal vegetarianism is better or not". BTW, what would we classify as abnormal vegetarianism?

 

[Poeticus]

This falls into the question whether humans were originally meat-eaters or not, which is still a debatable topic. I guess once there is an unanimous agreement, then we will find out whether "normal vegetarianism is better or not". BTW, what would we classify as abnormal vegetarianism?

Axlyz, I agree that from an ahimsa-related standpoint vegetarianism is better. However, there are people in the world, not that many but many nonetheless, that would find it physiologically impossible to survive on a vegetarian diet. It's something about the type of blood they have, if I can put it that way. I forgot what the condition is called.

 

[Jainarayan]

This falls into the question whether humans were originally meat-eaters or not, which is still a debatable topic. I guess once there is an unanimous agreement, then we will find out whether "normal vegetarianism is better or not". BTW, what would we classify as abnormal vegetarianism?

It's not debatable at all. Early humans on the African savanna were scavengers of animal carcasses first, then they learned to hunt. The human brain evolved on a high fat diet. The human gastrointestinal tract is a compromise between herbivore and carnivore, making humans omnivores. Humans have the teeth of both carnivores and herbivores. Humans evolved to eat meat. These are all biological and anthropological facts that cannot be denied no matter what the proponents of vegetarianism say. Whether humans choose to eat meat or not is their personal prerogative, but to say that vegetarianism is the proper diet for humans flies in the face of science. Btw "normal vegetarianism" is not my term; I was quoting it.

 

[Chakra]

Axlyz, I agree that from an ahimsa-related standpoint vegetarianism is better. However, there are people in the world, not that many but many nonetheless, that would find it physiologically impossible to survive on a vegetarian diet. It's something about the type of blood they have, if I can put it that way. I forgot what the condition is called.

I am not saying that everyone needs to be a vegetarian if they can't. That would be himsa on my part if I forced them to be. The thing is, how many people have the condition you are talking about (is it Anaemia?)? From what I see, most people simply eat meat because they can, or in other words, simply because of the taste and accessibility of it.

 

[Chakra]

It's not debatable at all. Early humans on the African savanna were scavengers of animal carcasses first, then they learned to hunt. The human brain evolved on a high fat diet. The human gastrointestinal tract is a compromise between herbivore and carnivore, making humans omnivores. Humans have the teeth of both carnivores and herbivores. Humans evolved to eat meat. These are all biological and anthropological facts that cannot be denied no matter what the proponents of vegetarianism say. Whether humans choose to eat meat or not is their personal prerogative, but to say that vegetarianism is the proper diet for humans flies in the face of science. Btw "normal vegetarianism" is not my term; I was quoting it.

Of course, humans are the only "omnivores" that will get heart diseases from eating too much meat. Bears and lions do not get heart disease from eating meat.

We share more similarities with herbivores than we do with omnivores or carnivores, IMO. But this is for another thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

Neither does the one-size-fits-all thinking about vegetarianism, that everyone can do it. That is false. Some people simply do not thrive on vegetarian diets. Normal vegetarianism is not always better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. For those people it is a step in the wrong direction. This is what people who promote vegetarianism fail to understand, yet they push it as the better way... not always.

That's true.

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course, humans are the only "omnivores" that will get heart diseases from eating too much meat.

That is also a falsehood and has been soundly debunked. The Framingham Study and Ancel Keyes's theories are bogus. They were poorly done studies. A conclusion was made, and then backed into. The Inuit, who have subsisted for millennia on animal fat are prone to heart disease and obesity only when they give up their traditional diet of meat and blubber. Besides, what is "too much meat"? It's like the broscience that goes around bodybuilding and weightlifting sites saying too much protein will wreck your kidneys (and they throw in wrecking the liver too, to add to the "bogus-ness")... what is too much protein? However, now that the topic is deviating from solely being about Hindus and beef, I'll bow out.

 

[Poeticus]

I am not saying that everyone needs to be a vegetarian if they can't. That would be himsa on my part if I forced them to be. The thing is, how many people have the condition you are talking about (is it Anaemia?)? From what I see, most people simply eat meat because they can, or in other words, simply because of the taste and accessibility of it.

Yes, I'd have to concede that many eat meat simply because they can, not because they have to in order to survive. There is also the matter of socio-cultural environment(s). And I think it's Anaemia.

Either way, getting back to the point if there even was one since only Aup-dada knows why he even made this thread in the first place, and long story short, Yajnavalkya was no prophet that could dictate "Hindu law". Therefore, such an example from the SB should not be seen as permissive. Not only that, but the SB is not even applicable for those that are not even of the Yajur's Kanva and Madhyandina shakha-s of the Karmakanda.

 

[ShivaFan]

There is no question in my mind, and from my experiences with many Gurus, participant in hundreds of satsangs, lectures, hearing from pujaris, reading scriptures, communions with Devatas and Devi, comparisons sung in bhajans - no ifs or buts about it to me:

The emphasis on not eating Mother Cow, not killing Her, regarding Her and Her babies as foundational to our cohabitation, Her honor given, and overwhelmingly spoken of in scripture and by yogis and saints, THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO BEING A HINDU and knowingly eating beef is removing yourself from the family of Hinduism of which penance is required to re-enter, including severe fasting or going to Himalayas or living naked in the forest or going about begging with a bowl or becoming a skull bearer, or given a rare pardon by a pure devotee or saint.

Sorry, no ifs or buts.

 

[Poeticus]

There is no question in my mind, and from my experiences with many Gurus, participant in hundreds of satsangs, lectures, hearing from pujaris, reading scriptures, communions with Devatas and Devi, comparisons sung in bhajans - no ifs or buts about it to me:

The emphasis on not eating Mother Cow, not killing Her, regarding Her and Her babies as foundational to our cohabitation, Her honor given, and overwhelmingly spoken of in scripture and by yogis and saints, THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO BEING A HINDU and knowingly eating beef is removing yourself from the family of Hinduism of which penance is required to re-enter, including severe fasting or going to Himalayas or living naked in the forest or going about begging with a bowl or becoming a skull bearer, or given a rare pardon by a pure devotee or saint.

Sorry, no ifs or buts.

... pretty much, give or take.

 

[Desert Snake]

In any case, I'm just talking about emphasis. There is 'balck and white', and grey' area, dietary habits usually fall under grey area except in extreme cases.
/plz don't quote thanx/

 

[George-ananda]

Neither does the one-size-fits-all thinking about vegetarianism, that everyone can do it. That is false. Some people simply do not thrive on vegetarian diets. Normal vegetarianism is not always better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. For those people it is a step in the wrong direction. This is what people who promote vegetarianism fail to understand, yet they push it as the better way... not always.

As I understand it, the percentage of people that can not thrive on an intelligent vegetarian diet is very low. The overwhelming reason for meat eating is to please the palate.

If there are people that must eat meat to thrive then it is of course correct for them to do so.

 

[ShivaFan]

One would cease to be practicing correctly if they place very problematice secular attachments into pure Dharmic realm, this is even worse because it isn't a 'neutral', i.e. not being Hindu, it is introducing possible irrevocable damage to the methodology of enacting proper Dharma and thusly even worship.
/please don't quote thanx/

Bhumi is part/part, Dharmic reaction is wholly not maya

No, I am not authorized to say mean things to you such as "you will suffer in hells", and certainly I would still be your friend, and very much so to those who never were a Hindu and eat beef, I will treat them with respect, show love and mercy appropriately.

For one who was already a Hindu and then knowingly eat beef, I am not the "police of dharma" nor a Bhairava nor will be mean to you or say you are going to hell, nor go bezerker and "hound" you, no. But I will give my honest opinion that you have "stepped away" and to return you MUST do penance.

Eating beef means taking a society surely down the path to war. This is what I am taught. A Hindu who does so has the effect of 10,000 non-Hindus taking a society down the path to war.

Do not confuse, I am not saying there are no just wars. I am not a fan of Gandhi. In fact, there may be a time or reason why war is brought upon for a reason by means of actually stimulating it by means of opportunity to eat beef, though rare. I do not recommend it.

For you, I do not say mean things. You can always be my friend, though I am not special, nor am I interested in endless preaching because basically I am lazy, not interested in the "whys" but only interested in results, outcomes and having fun in the process. If it works, don't try and fix it. If the garden is around you, no need to eat a toad "just to see". If the doctor says "drink this potion" and it works, cures me, I don't waste time asking "why" before or after, I get on with experiences, adventures, fun.

For you, I thought I saw something for you if you were a Hindu and knowingly ate beef. You should fly to India as soon as possible, go to Mother Ganga, enter Her embrace of jal, with hands in Namaskar. Then with devotion say "Mother Ganga". Nothing else you need to say. You will be instantly purified and a Hindu.

 

[Kalidas]

Neither does the one-size-fits-all thinking about vegetarianism, that everyone can do it. That is false. Some people simply do not thrive on vegetarian diets. Normal vegetarianism is not always better. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. For those people it is a step in the wrong direction. This is what people who promote vegetarianism fail to understand, yet they push it as the better way... not always.

So I don't want answer each post separately so I will answer the ones I want to all here.

First regarding the ones"vegetarians is hypocritical" you're assuming we do it for the animal. Many vegetarians(such as myself) focus more on the reducing human harm. Not to mention reducing SOME harm is better then just saying "well I can't stop all of it so I give up!" I know I'm not ending all my harm but I have reduced it.

Next, no one is saying you HAVE to be a vegetarian. You're the one making that assumption