• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Limits of Hinduism

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
This view is a pretty recent one. It was probably done to avoid all the sectarianism that divided Hindus and create a "secular" view IMHO.
No, this view is as old as the time when our sages said:
"एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ll"
"Ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanti Agnim Yamam Mātarishvānam āhuh"
(Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names like Agni, Yama, Matariswan).
RigVeda, I.164.46 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv01164.htm)
verse dedicated to Vishwedevah, and credited to Dīrghatamas Auchathya.
 
Last edited:

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No this view is as old as the time when our sages said "Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" (Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan).
RigVeda, I.164.46

This verse only says that Brahman is referred by different names like Agni, Yama, etc. No where does it say that the devas Agni and Yama are the truth. You have to reconcile this with the other parts of the Vedas that say "yO dEvAnAM nAmadA Eka Eva", which means ("He is the One and Only who bears the names/name-giver of all the devas").

Regards
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It is already reconciled - 'Ekam sad' and 'Eka eva'. Both mean there is only one, call it by whatever name you want. However, a Hindu is still entitled to his/her opinion (Munde munde matirbhinna - different heads, different views).
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
This verse only says that Brahman is referred by different names like Agni, Yama, etc. No where does it say that the devas Agni and Yama are the truth. You have to reconcile this with the other parts of the Vedas that say "yO dEvAnAM nAmadA Eka Eva", which means ("He is the One and Only who bears the names/name-giver of all the devas").

Regards

R.V.1.164.46 is actually dedicated to the All-Gods as per the anukramani-s (the Vedic indices). ;)
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It is already reconciled - 'Ekam sad' and 'Eka eva'. Both mean there is only one, call it by whatever name you want. However, a Hindu is still entitled to his/her opinion (Munde munde matirbhinna - different heads, different views).

Exactly. If I call Brahman by the names of David, Paul, Jason etc, that does not make anyone by those names Brahman.

R.V.1.164.46 is actually dedicated to the All-Gods as per the anukramani-s (the Vedic indices). ;)

I'm not sure what that is, could you please inform me? :)

Well this is certainly a point where both Aup-ji and you disagree with me. Hence there is no point in discussing this.

I will just say that even if we take Yama, Agni, Indra etc to be Brahman or "aspects of Brahman", the kenOpanishad specifically says that devas like Agni, Vayu and others were all humbled by Brahman. It doesn't make sense that if Agni and Vayu were Brahman, they would be humbled by "another" Brahman.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I am pretty sure that the view that "Shiva and Vishnu are equal parts of Brahman" is the most popular view nowadays, more popular than any deva-hierarchy view.

I would be very surprised if that was the case.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
In terms of beef eating- I have heard that Hindus in Indonesia do so.

And this is a reality that I keep forgetting about. Eating various types of meat but not of the bovinae is largely an Indic phenomenon. Thus, wouldn't it make sense for non-Indian Hindus that eat meat to not exclude the flesh of the cow ? Indian Hindus don't have to eat beef if they don't want to. Balinese Hindus are more than welcomed to continue eating beef. But shouldn't non-Indian Hindus that eat meat also be allowed ? Take Balinese Hindus, for example. They will come up to you and look right into your eyes and proudly exclaim their Hindu identity; "I'm a proud Hindu !" they will say. The cow hasn't been prominent for them socio-culturally and hasn't had enough impact on the Balinese Hindus to become divinized. In India, on the other hand, the reality has been the opposite: divinizing has occurred. So for non-Indian Hindus that eat meat, especially in the West, shouldn't they be allowed to consume beef for socio-cultural reasons ? The Bali reality has always perplexed me in regards to the question of beef.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
... the kenOpanishad specifically says that devas like Agni, Vayu and others were all humbled by Brahman. It doesn't make sense that if Agni and Vayu were Brahman, they would be humbled by "another" Brahman.

What you write is absolutely true.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
And this is a reality that I keep forgetting about. Eating various types of meat but not of the bovinae is largely an Indic phenomenon. Thus, wouldn't it make sense for non-Indian Hindus that eat meat to not exclude the flesh of the cow ? Indian Hindus don't have to eat beef if they don't want to. Balinese Hindus are more than welcomed to continue eating beef. But shouldn't non-Indian Hindus that eat meat also be allowed ? Take Balinese Hindus, for example. They will come up to you and look right into your eyes and proudly exclaim their Hindu identity; "I'm a proud Hindu !" they will say. The cow hasn't been prominent for them socio-culturally and hasn't had enough impact on the Balinese Hindus to become divinized. In India, on the other hand, the reality has been the opposite: divinizing has occurred. So for non-Indian Hindus that eat meat, especially in the West, shouldn't they be allowed to consume beef for socio-cultural reasons ? The Bali reality has always perplexed me in regards to the question of beef.

This is a good point. I've been thinking that not eating beef is more of a cultural taboo because of the great importance of bovines to Indian society in the past. It's not unlike the taboo in most of the west (definitely in America) against eating horses, dogs and cats. They have been pets, companions and work animals (cats as rodent exterminators) for centuries. Yet other societies have no issue with using any of those for food. The cow in Indian society is equivalent, at least, to the draft horse. No farmer could work his fields without either animal.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
This is a good point. I've been thinking that not eating beef is more of a cultural taboo because of the great importance of bovines to Indian society in the past. It's not unlike the taboo in most of the west (definitely in America) against eating horses, dogs and cats. They have been pets, companions and work animals (cats as rodent exterminators) for centuries. Yet other societies have no issue with using any of those for food. The cow in Indian society is equivalent, at least, to the draft horse. No farmer could work his fields without either animal.

Precisely. I can understand and often commend Hindus that are vegetarian or vegan; and in this case: vegetarian or vegan Hindus that are ethno-linguistically or ethno-racially Western/European in origin. But for Hindus of the same group that do eat meat but exclude the flesh of the cow ... 'tis most certainly a conundrum since there lacks that socio-cultural importance similar to that of Balinese Hindus. A similar reality can be found amongst Indian diaspora communities here in the West. Many of them are Hindu and many of them will not consume the flesh of the cow. The exclusion of beef in regards to diet for those that have been naturalized is understandable: they grew up in India, they have a first-hand experience with the socio-cultural importance of cows for Hindus in India. But for Indian Hindus that were born here in the States, I don't find a convincing factor for them to exclude beef in terms of objectivity other than the fact that their parents or their grandparents were naturalized and had a first-hand experience in the socio-cultural importance of abstaining from the flesh of the cow back in the homeland.

Another interesting conundrum can be found in Nepal. Nepali Hindus largely don't eat beef, even though the presence of the plains that can be seen geographically in India is pretty much non-existent in the hilly landscapes of Nepal. Cows haven't played a prominent role in Nepali dietary habits, and it seems they have largely been influenced by mainland-India and the dietary habits of Indian Hindus. And then it gets into the whole jiffy of either-go-vegetarian-brah or go-full-carnivore; treatment-of-animals-in-factories-and-farms-can't-be-assured and thus go-full-hunting-mode-and-get-your-own-meat; cows-are-important-because-of-this but cats-and-dogs-are-important-and-we-don't-eat-them.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Mentioning the Indian diaspora is indeed a good example of how culture and traditions are passed on. OK, let me make a disclaimer, I'm neither advocating nor condemning eating beef. ;) But I will bet that if one were to ask an Indian teenager born and raised in the US, why they don't eat beef, the answer would be "gee, I don't know, we just don't". I'm not mocking that, just saying that the reasons for many things that are important to a cultural are forgotten.

Take Italian-Americans for example (please do take them! my family anyway! :D)... if you were to ask them why they have 7 fish dishes on Christmas Eve, not a one could tell you why, but every Christmas Eve they have them. We never had that tradition, and I know precisely why... my mother couldn't be bothered with all that cooking. :biglaugh: But back to culture, the Chinese are not big on beef either mostly because cattle require a lot of pastureland, which China does not have. Pigs, chickens and ducks, otoh, are foragers and take less resources to raise.

So I'm not really sure what my point is :p other than agreeing that most of the beef-eschewing is probably a cultural meme. And that's OK, I have no beef with that (no, he didn't make that pun :facepalm:). It's what people do.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
One thing is true ... Hindus and vegetarianism in discussion forums isn't going away anytime soon. How do I set up a survey? Right now I'm betting this forum's Hindus are mostly non-vegetarian.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I agree with Poeticus and Jainarayana-ji that culture affects diet a lot. I mean, in one place, cats may be pets and cows as food. In another, cows may be pets and cats may be food. And while I know that some societies "need" meat to survive, they should stay away from at least beef production. It is by far the only meat production that can severely affect the environment in a bad way. Still, I think that any Hindu that eats beef is not a complete Hindu, no matter how many yajnas or pujas they do everyday. Like I said before, if you want to be called a Hindu, you should accept all of the teachings, not nit-pick them.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I agree with Poeticus and Jainarayana-ji that culture affects diet a lot. I mean, in one place, cats may be pets and cows as food. In another, cows may be pets and cats may be food. Still, I think that any Hindu that eats beef is not a complete Hindu, no matter how many yajnas or pujas they do everyday. Like I said before, if you want to be called a Hindu, you should accept all of the teachings, not nit-pick them.

Regards

The thing is this:

Balinese Hindus, for example, eat beef. Yet they will tell you straight to your face that they are Hindu and nothing but Hindu, no ifs and buts about it. These are guys and girls that know their identity. On the other hand, take a survey of Hindus in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. They'll usually copout with the, "I mean, um, yeah, bro, like, yeah, um, dude, I guess I'm Hindu, like, my parents were, Hindus and all, and I guess I'm one as well, but like, I'm, like, so universal, and like I love the Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey books, they are, like, the best series of all time, like". Whereas Balinese Hindus will say straight to your face: "with the glories of Lord Hanuman and by the grace of the Hindu gods as well as the spirits of my indigenous ancestors ... you bet your *** I'm a Hindu; bring it on beeyaaatch". I don't know about ya'll, but I'll take Hindus that are vehemently proud to loudly boast and exclaim that they are---indeed---not just Hindus but very freakin' proud to be Hindu, over Hindus with an identity crisis. Any time of any day of any month of any year. All day; every day.​
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Like I said before, if you want to be called a Hindu, you should accept all of the teachings, not nit-pick them.

Regards

Given that compared to something like quitting smoking, which is physically addictive, it's very easy to do, I concur. I was surprised by many communities just how extensive meat eating is. But at least they don't bring it to the Hindu festivals, and keep it to the Association barbecues.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The thing is this:

Balinese Hindus, for example, eat beef. Yet they will tell you straight to your face that they are Hindu and nothing but Hindu, no ifs and buts about it. These are guys and girls that know their identity. On the other hand, take a survey of Hindus in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. They'll usually copout with the, "I mean, um, yeah, bro, like, yeah, um, dude, I guess I'm Hindu, like, my parents were, Hindus and all, and I guess I'm one as well, but like, I'm, like, so universal, and like I love the Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey books, they are, like, the best series of all time, like". Whereas Balinese Hindus will say straight to your face: "with the glories of Lord Hanuman and by the grace of the Hindu gods as well as the spirits of my indigenous ancestors ... you bet your *** I'm a Hindu; bring it on beeyaaatch". I don't know about ya'll, but I'll take Hindus that are vehemently proud to loudly boast and exclaim that they are---indeed---not just Hindus but very freakin' proud to be Hindu, over Hindus with an identity crisis. Any time of any day of any month of any year. All day; every day.​

It doesn't matter that they are proud of being Hindu and their Gods. Even asuras believed that they were doing the right thing and that their god was blessing them. Honestly, do they really think that Hanuman-ji will be happy they kill such a benevolent animal like the cow??? If they do, then :facepalm:

Even if they are dying for food, I am sure they have other animals. The cow is still the one that should never be killed, according to Vedic scriptures. For one to be a Hindu, they should accept the authority of the Vedas. And it is the Vedas that say that cows should not be killed and eaten.

Regards
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Personally, I find the Balinese a historical exception. Somehow, they've managed to survive several hundred years in relative isolation from the rest of the Hindu world. There are few Hinduisms like them.

Special Feature: Bali, Land of Offerings - Magazine Web Edition > April/May/June 2012 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine is a fairly lengthy article modern exploring the tradition there.

Meat eating, in and of itself, does not put people outside of Hinduism for me, even though on a personal level it might. I'm not about to eat a steak just to see how I feel about it.
 
Last edited:

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
. For one to be a Hindu, they should accept the authority of the Vedas. And it is the Vedas that say that cows should not be killed and eaten.

Regards


Accepting the authority of something doesn't necessarily mean accepting the infallibility of something.
I accept the authority of lots of people/documents. Judges, the president, police, the constitution etc...

That doesn't mean that I believe that those people/institutions are without flaw or fault. I think stipulations like no eating beef have their place -as a personal reminder of gratitude/ a grounding oneself in one's faith, and also, from a practical perspective, preventing environmental damage and large scale cruelty. But I agree with Poeticus to some extent. People are free to labels themselves however they want, regardless of what people think because at the end of the day who's going to stop them? What people find acceptable or unacceptable changes with ever passing decade, so in reality, time decides who is and isn't a Hindu.

:camp:
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram

dear fireside ji
please no offence in thinking I have singled out you post , this is equaly applicable to many who have maade the assumption that ''....we are free to ....''

That doesn't mean that I believe that those people/institutions are without flaw or fault. I think stipulations like no eating beef have their place -as a personal reminder of gratitude/ a grounding oneself in one's faith, and also, from a practical perspective, preventing environmental damage and large scale cruelty. But I agree with Poeticus to some extent. People are free to labels themselves however they want, regardless of what people think because at the end of the day who's going to stop them? What people find acceptable or unacceptable changes with ever passing decade, so in reality, time decides who is and isn't a Hindu.

:camp:

I agree yes people have the freedom to choose their level of comittment and in this case I think it is cultural , ......but it is also as a result of karma , in that we are born into a position which reflects ones actions in a previous birth , if you examine this phenomena closely , ones birth into a particular position , into a wealthy or poor family , into a particularly devout family , into a vegetarian family , .....it is all as a result of our previous actions .

now for instance if this little jiva is going to come back , it is going to be extremely selective , ....no , no ...I wont take birth there ....not in a family who smoke and drink , ..not in a non veg family , ..., ...the jiva will go to what it knows , ...and to what has been important to it before , ...my feeling is that what ever we cultivate in this liftime goes with us into the next , ...so as a result you have hindus all over the globe practicing very differently keeping some of the principles but not all ....and unfortunately because this is Kali yuga the percentagr of pure souls is much smaller .....

say for instance we take the typical vendiagram ....

images
if we could for the analogy place this vendiagram within an all encompasing circle that we will call Hinduism ....

each section is them a follower of either one if the four commpn regulative principles and the fifth devotion ...

so all are hindu but within the wider circle we have the four common regulative principles

1 . strict vegetarians (no meat no eggs...)
2 . intoxicant free (no alcahol , drugs , stimulants ...)
3 . pure faith ..(no gambling , ...)
4 . procreation only within marrage with concern for offspring ..

and

5 . new converts (and indiginous peoples) attracted worship and mythology but who are not practicing the above ...


then you have the central intersection of them all ....the pure devotee ...

each Hindu fits within one category or another ....

but sadly in this Kali yuga the pure devotee section is smaller that prehaps we would like

...there you go ....I will work this illustration out a little better later .....possibly we need many more than five inclinations ...but hoping you get my point ....
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Exactly. If I call Brahman by the names of David, Paul, Jason etc, that does not make anyone in my college by those names Brahman.
David, Paul and Jason are none other than Brahman' and so are Osama, Saddam and Gaddafi, since there is no other.
I will just say that even if we take Yama, Agni, Indra etc to be Brahman or "aspects of Brahman", the kenopanishad specifically says that devas like Agni, Vayu and others were all humbled by Brahman. It doesn't make sense that if Agni and Vayu were Brahman, they would be humbled by "another" Brahman.
That is 'leela', 'maya', illusion. very difficult to understand. But with effort, can be surmounted.
I am pretty sure that the view that "Shiva and Vishnu are equal parts of Brahman" is the most popular view nowadays, more popular than any deva-hierarchy view.
There are no parts of Brahman. It is always 'One Whole' - 'Purnam Idam', undivisible IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Top