The Limits of Hinduism

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Set up a poll. Do you want to consider the Hindu-born, Hindu-converts and Hindu-interested separately or together?

Still, I think that any Hindu that eats beef is not a complete Hindu, no matter how many yajnas or pujas they do everyday.

Bali Hindus may put a spanner in the works. We have no authority or reason to ostracize them. Dharmavyadha was a butcher.

 

[Jainarayan]

This really should be a non-issue because no one, and I mean no one on this board or anywhere on planet Earth has the authority, right or the perfection of soul and practice to say what someone else should do, or what makes someone Hindu or not. Everyone knows what to strive for; some people are further ahead in their journeys than others, for whatever reason. One can refer to and cite the Vedas all they want, using any interpretation they want, but in the end, no one... no one, follows them to the letter. In that regard, then, no one is Hindu. One does the best one can based on their own personal situation, be it spiritual, physical, cultural or any other criterion. There's too much pontificating on too many issues, practices and beliefs in Hinduism by people who are far from perfect. And if anyone thinks I am addressing them, then I probably am, because they know it applies to them. Let's pull the weeds out of our own gardens before we tell others how to grow their gardens.

 

[StarryNightshade]

This really should be a non-issue because no one, and I mean no one on this board or anywhere on planet Earth has the authority, right or the perfection of soul and practice to say what someone else should do, or what makes someone Hindu or not. Everyone knows what to strive for; some people are further ahead in their journeys than others, for whatever reason. One can refer to and cite the Vedas all they want, using any interpretation they want, but in the end, no one... no one, follows them to the letter. In that regard, then, no one is Hindu. One does the best one can based on their own personal situation, be it spiritual, physical, cultural or any other criterion. There's too much pontificating on too many issues, practices and beliefs in Hinduism by people who are far from perfect. And if anyone thinks I am addressing them, then I probably am, because they know it applies to them. Let's pull the weeds out of our own gardens before we tell others how to grow their gardens.

:clap

 

[Chakra]

David, Paul and Jason are none other than Brahman' and so are Osama, Saddam and Gaddafi, since there is no other.

Not in the Vyavahara level.

That is 'leela', 'maya', illusion. very difficult to understand. But with effort, can be surmounted.

I don't think that this is leela. Indra goes to ask Umadevi on who that Yaksha was, and Uma replies that the Yaksha was Brahman and that it was Brahman who was victorious, and not the Devas in the war. This means that Indra and devas couldn't have won without the help of Brahman. Elsewhere in the Vedas, it says that Devas do their duties out of fear of Brahman. But each to his own

There are no parts of Brahman. It is always 'One Whole' - 'Purnam Idam', undivisible IMHO.

Agreed.

I am probably going to stop posting things about Upanishads here because it is off-topic.

 

[Chakra]

Namaste Jainarayana-ji

This really should be a non-issue because no one, and I mean no one on this board or anywhere on planet Earth has the authority, right or the perfection of soul and practice to say what someone else should do, or what makes someone Hindu or not.

And this is also against the rules of the DIR, so I will avoid talking about this. But please note that I never called them non-Hindus or bad people. All I have said was that beef-eating is unvedic in the Kali-Yuga.

Everyone knows what to strive for; some people are further ahead in their journeys than others, for whatever reason. One can refer to and cite the Vedas all they want, using any interpretation they want, but in the end, no one... no one, follows them to the letter. In that regard, then, no one is Hindu. One does the best one can based on their own personal situation, be it spiritual, physical, cultural or any other criterion. There's too much pontificating on too many issues, practices and beliefs in Hinduism by people who are far from perfect. And if anyone thinks I am addressing them, then I probably am, because they know it applies to them.

Yes, no one can follow the Vedas to the core, and one has to try the best he can do to become a better "Hindu". I still do think that one should try to minimize suffering unto others before we try to rectify ourselves. I don't think one requires to be a saint to tell someone that beef-eating is condemned in the sciptures. If we don't criticize unvedic ideas, then they could eventually be accepted as truth. But that's just my opinion. Correct me if I am wrong.

Let's pull the weeds out of our own gardens before we tell others how to grow their gardens.

I do not understand what you are saying with this. If we knew any Hindu who ate human flesh, I am sure not one of us would say that this act is ethical and supported by Hinduism. No one is going to say, "Oh, I am not a good enough Hindu and person so I cannot criticize what you are doing as un-vedic and unethical." Of course, I will probably not be able to convince the Balinese to stop their acts, but I can say that it is unvedic in the Kali-Yuga, can't I? Note that by saying this I am not saying that I am a "better Hindu" than them.

Please note that all my comments were directed to the beef-eating Balinese Hindus only.

With this, I take my leave from this particular discussion. May Lord Narayana fulfill all your desires and keep you away from any suffering. :namaste

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

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 ....''



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 ....

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 ....

Ratikalaji,

No offense taken. I agree with much of what you mean by our actions informing our next experiences in future lives. I spent 27 years of my life happily and guilt-lessly eating beef. To some extend I still eat chicken and fish without much guilt. Why?

Because it's not enough to look at the goal. One must look backward to analyze the progress. As a teen I was ridiculously selfish and angry all the time. As a child I was nasty,petulant, greedy and stubborn. As an adult I am racist, ignorant, and naive.

People are works in progress. What I do today will effect my next life, and I'm okay with that as long as I make sure that I'm always taking steps to do better, no matter how small.

I say in my last post that people can call themselves whatever they want, but that's really only because people will and it seems self-defeating to argue with people about who they say they are. I can only offer people an alternative view by living my life as dharmically as possible. It makes more sense to me to spend my energy on improving myself then trying to define and redefine people.

:camp:

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste Jainarayana-ji



And this is also against the rules of the DIR, so I will avoid talking about this. But please note that I never called them non-Hindus or bad people. All I have said was that beef-eating is unvedic in the Kali-Yuga.

There are a lot of things un-Vedic in kali yuga. But like some Abrahamics who focus on the 'sin' of homosexuality over really serious sins, diet is given the spotlight in Hinduism. I'm sure there are a thousand other things that are un-Vedic too. There is an old discussion on the Manu Smrti, and whether they should be adhered to or not. Should they? or have times changed sufficiently that they can and should be discarded? It's not all black and white.

Yes, no one can follow the Vedas to the core, and one has to try the best he can do to become a better "Hindu". I still do think that one should try to minimize suffering unto others before we try to rectify ourselves. I don't think one requires to be a saint to tell someone that beef-eating is condemned in the sciptures. If we don't criticize unvedic ideas, then they could eventually be accepted as truth. But that's just my opinion. Correct me if I am wrong.

I did point out, in not so many words, that one tries to do the best one can... that means minimizing ahimsa. It can't be eliminated. Using dairy products ultimately commits himsa on cows. But what abhishekam is complete without curds and milk? Not every temple or homeowner has a goshala to obtain sattvic milk from.

The belief that one has to inform others of rights and wrongs sticks in my craw, having come from a religious tradition that believes that exact same thing... something Hindus try to distance themselves from, yet in spite of themselves, they do the same thing. At least on the internet.

I do not understand what you are saying with this. If we knew any Hindu who ate human flesh, I am sure not one of us would say that this act is ethical and supported by Hinduism. No one is going to say, "Oh, I am not a good enough Hindu and person so I cannot criticize what you are doing as un-vedic and unethical." Of course, I will probably not be able to convince the Balinese to stop their acts, but I can say that it is unvedic in the Kali-Yuga, can't I? Note that by saying this I am not saying that I am a "better Hindu" than them.

What I mean by this, nothing more and nothing less, is that one should become perfect in practice, then one can tell others what they are doing right and wrong. Again, there's hardly a Hindu out of >1 billion who is not un-Vedic to some degree or another. It's simply not possible.The example of eating human flesh is a poor analogy because almost every civilized nation and culture has laws against it.

Please note that all my comments were directed to the beef-eating Balinese Hindus only.

It doesn't matter if it's directed at Martian Hindus. The fact remains that no one has a right to judge what others do, regardless of ethnic origin.

This is not intended to be a debate, which is not permitted, but what I consider to be observations and personal opinions.

Btw, I myself don't eat beef, mostly out of respect for a culture in which it is taboo, not for anything (un)Vedic, because there are too many things I think are more un-Vedic we do in every day life. But I will defend any other person's right to eat beef, Hindu or not.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Some Saiva and Sakta sects eat meat. Aghoris never frown in consuming human flesh. Are they not Hindus ? :/

 

[Chakra]

Namaste Jainarayana-ji

There are a lot of things un-Vedic in kali yuga. But like some Abrahamics who focus on the 'sin' of homosexuality over really serious sins, diet is given the spotlight in Hinduism. I'm sure there are a thousand other things that are un-Vedic too. There is an old discussion on the Manu Smrti, and whether they should be adhered to or not. Should they? or have times changed sufficiently that they can and should be discarded? It's not all black and white.

Yes, there are a lot of unvedic things in the Kali Yuga. The Manu Smrti was probably interpolated a lot of time, since there are many contradicting verses. So we shouldn't use the Manu Smrti to guide our life. I do believe that the best way is to look at realized acharyas and saints and follow in their footsteps. No saint has ever eaten beef, and there is no need of doing so in this day. If you check out the scientific studies on this, you will understand what I am talking about.

I did point out, in not so many words, that one tries to do the best one can... that means minimizing ahimsa. It can't be eliminated. Using dairy products ultimately commits himsa on cows. But what abhishekam is complete without curds and milk? Not every temple or homeowner has a goshala to obtain sattvic milk from.

Yes, I guess I can agree on the abhishekam thing. But that is completely irrelevant to beef-eating. Eating beef when there are plenty fruits around is definitely not ahimsa. Just because you can't find sattvic milk doesn't give any justification for beef-eating.

The belief that one has to inform others of rights and wrongs sticks in my craw, having come from a religious tradition that believes that exact same thing... something Hindus try to distance themselves from, yet in spite of themselves, they do the same thing. At least on the internet.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. I only criticized the Balinese for their acts as unvedic, not wrong (though personally I believe it is). And I do not mind being criticized.

What I mean by this, nothing more and nothing less, is that one should become perfect in practice, then one can tell others what they are doing right and wrong.

Right, so only a saint can tell others what is right and wrong. Ok. Like I said, no saint has ever eaten beef, so I would think that most Hindus should follow them.

Again, there's hardly a Hindu out of >1 billion who is not un-Vedic to some degree or another. It's simply not possible.

That is true, but this apparently give justification for eating an animal which is held dearly by all of our Gods and has been called the one who shall not be eaten?

The example of eating human flesh is a poor analogy because almost every civilized nation and culture has laws against it.

The analogy was not a political or social one, but a religious one. Vedas prohibit eating human flesh, and logically no Hindu eats human flesh. Vedas also prohibit eating cow flesh, but suddenly this is allowed all of a sudden?

It doesn't matter if it's directed at Martian Hindus. The fact remains that no one has a right to judge what others do, regardless of ethnic origin.

I was not judging, but simply labeling their practice as un vedic. I didn't call the Balinese specifically as unvedic. If a beef-eating Balinese person saved my life, I would consider him a hero. But that doesn't change that what they are doing is unvedic.
And on a completely unrelated topic, we do have a right to judge what others do. I judge rapists, serial killers, terrorists etc everyday. (And no, I am not equating beef-eating with rape and murder)

Hindus should try to live up to the regulations of the Vedas. And while it may be difficult to control krodha, kama, etc, to give up beef-eating is quite simple to do. If a Hindu finds it hard to give up eating beef, they are only following their own sentiments and not logic nor reason.

This really will be my last post on the topic of beef-eating.

Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

Do not parts of the Vedas also prohibit eating meat of any kind? That would include the chicken and fish that the inhabitants of the coastal and river areas rely on. All I'm suggesting that the taboo on eating beef is a cultural one, perhaps rooted in Vedic times because of the importance of cattle. Eating beef or not eating beef does not make one Hindu or not. There are many other criteria that I think are more important for being able to claim 'Hindu' as one's religion than what one eats or does not eat. As JayaBolenath pointed out, aghoris eat human flesh. Are they Hindu or not? There is no one test for Hinduness.

 

[Chakra]

Some Saiva and Sakta sects eat meat. Aghoris never frown in consuming human flesh. Are they not Hindus ? :/

Namaste JayaBholenath-ji,

I am not well versed in Shaiva and Shakta scriptures to know whether this is allowed or not. Even if meat-eating is not prohibited in Shaiva and Shakta scriptures, they will still be considered Hindus because they believe in 2 denominations of Hinduism. But if it is prohibited, in practice, they wouldn't be fully Shaivas and Shaktas. Again, I don't know whether their scriptures allow meat-eating. Of course, meat eating isn't the actual barrier between a Hindu and non-Hindu.

As far as the Aghoris are concerned, I think that they only eat meat of already dead humans. They do not murder humans and then eat them. Correct me if I am wrong. I think that they are worshipers of Shiva, and so thus would be considered Hindu. But they ignore the statements of scriptures that say to not eat human flesh. Only their practices can be labeled as unvedic, but not their beliefs (Shiva is supreme etc).

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not in the Vyavahara level.

When I am talking about religion, I generally do not descend to Vyavaharika level.

I don't think that this is leela. Indra goes to ask Umadevi on who that Yaksha was, and Uma replies that the Yaksha was Brahman and that it was Brahman who was victorious, and not the Devas in the war. This means that Indra and devas couldn't have won without the help of Brahman. Elsewhere in the Vedas, it says that Devas do their duties out of fear of Brahman. But each to his own

I do not know this story. I will try to find it out.

 

[Chakra]

When I am talking about religion, I generally do not descend to Vyavaharika level.I do not know this story. I will try to find it out.

It is actually in Katha Upanishad 2.3.3, the story about Devas being afraid of Brahman. The other story is in kenOpanishad.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

to all concerned , ....it is a great shame that too many posts here degenerate into chalenging each other as to what can or can't rightly be called 'hinduism' or 'hindu behavior' , ....or what is or is not vedic behavior , ...


as far as I am concerned , if the vedas are not to be taken seriously then what was a religion becomes merely a cultural group , ....

if the Vedas prohibit a practice , then to continue that practice it is ...Un Vedic Behavior ..and there are no two ways about it .

if a person does not yet feel ready to give up meat eating completely, then that is fine but let us just do as Fireside ji has done , and say ...I am working on it , ....and little by little that persons sadhana will improve , ......everything will become easier ..all glories to you fireside ji I salute your honesty .

but this tendancy to try to justify un vedic actions by arguing the toss , ...is just excellerating the onset of Kali yuga and does not help the cause of hinduism in the least .

if there is one test of our hindu 'ness' then it should be respect and humility .

that respect should extend to all forms of life and should increase with our daily practice ....so if we realise something to be ''himsa'' then best to try to disscontinue this practice , it is as simple as that .. just try ....

so let us just practice rather than argue

 

[Chakra]

I would also like to point out the comment on abhishekam and dahi and dairy for all Vaishnavas and vegetarian Hindus in general.

Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami (a Sri Vaishnava scholar) has said that there is no need for us to pour milk and curd over a deity. God does not require us to waste so much dairy for a stone (no offence intended) when we can rather give it to starving children. Service to man is service to God. God can simply be bathed in pure water. So using dairy for abhishekam is unnecessary, at least in a Vaishnava POV. If any Hindu agrees with this, please let me know. I want to find out how many people agree with the idea that the deity can be washed with water.

I have to say I'm quite relieved to hear this from a person who is so expert in shastras.

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

If any Hindu agrees with this, please let me know. I want to find out how many people agree with the idea that the deity can be washed with water.

I fully agree with you and the Swamigal. I do not think any Hindu will disagree with that. Deities would be satisfied with a clean water bath, and perhaps prefer it above an abhishekam with milk, dahi, ghee or honey. At least I would not like to bathe with these things. The deities perhaps just watch and are amused by our follies. Even if it is done, it is only symbolism. A wee little quantity of these things would suffice. No use pouring buckets and buckets of milk over deity idols.

 

[StarryNightshade]

If any Hindu agrees with this, please let me know. I want to find out how many people agree with the idea that the deity can be washed with water.

As much as I love watching abhishekam, I have always found it off-putting that so much milk, curd, and honey would be used; more so than water.

Maybe a small bathing with milk and honey, and a big washing of water afterwards would be just as good?

 

[Vinayaka]

And just how does everyone here plan to stop every Hindu who gives milk to temples?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no need to stop anyone. Hinduism gives the freedom to practice it in individual ways. An individual's practice changes with time and understanding. Axlyz was asking about individual views.

http://www.google.com/search?q=abhi...oDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1600&bih=775#imgdii=_
http://www.google.com/search?q=jain...gola+mahamastakabhisheka&safe=active&tbm=isch (with apologies to Jains)

 

[StarryNightshade]

And just how does everyone here plan to stop every Hindu who gives milk to temples?

I'm not going to stop anyone at temple giving milk (especially considering the age of the tradition), but, like Aup said, I only gave my perspective. That sure isn't going to change minds, and that was not the intention.