How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

I personally do not buy the “ummah� theory. The more we study the ongoing affairs of “Muslim� countries – the more mythical the concept of the ummah appears. In fact, the citizens of “Muslim� countries appear to be as much at war with themselves (usually propelled by a small section of the population and imposed on the vast (peaceful) majority) as with anybody else.

In any case, whether that argument (that large body of Indian Muslim sections would identify with the worldwide “ummah� more than with the country which gave them birth and sustenance) to me appears very dubious. It is also way off-topic for the current piece which makes an attempt to trace the origins of the “vegetarian� dietary habits of Hindus. Even those who consider that (other) topic legitimate should perhaps find some other forum (or UP) to discuss it, it makes no sense on this board.

Eklavya#99:

I think that Modi will meet his well-deserved karmon-ka-fal sooner or later; but the phenomenon he represents is not going to go away.

Vengat.../Muzumdar
Ans: Indians (you call it Hindus) do not eat beaf apart from few abberations. This is my observation and experience. Please tell me a area where beaf eating is not considered a taboo and prohibited. The basic reason for cow worshipping (treating cow as mother) is cow milk is best substitute for mother's milk and widely used as baby food for 1000s of years. Initial eras of Vadas, people used to eat everything. During the period of Krishna, cow meat eating was prohibited. With Jainism/Budhdhism, meat eating stopped amongst upper caste people. Those who perform shakti puja (goddess Kali,Durga, Chandika), they eat meat. But vaishnavites and shivaites upper castes do not eat meat. The consumption of animal/bird meat increased in recent years.
I am not denying, early years of Vedas, even the rishis used to sacrifice animal and eat that.
Apart from occations, indians, by and large were mostly vegetarian and follow the tradition. Favourable climatic condition and developed agriculture is mainly responsible for this.

Eklavya, GT:

Arre bhai, why do you people talk in riddles (surely, a hindu trait!)? Do you believe that, to impress, one has to first confuse and confound the innnocent? I like Urstruly, there is never any problem in understanding what he says.

mohar, could be, but urstruly also genuinely likes to know things; he might not agree with us, but he will give us a fair hearing, methinks at least :)

---------

dm Sir, EVERYONE loses when people are thrown impossible and vicious challenges, particularly based on utter ignorance.

Modi is just an illegitimate child of Gandhi-Nehru who themselves failed. Of course, we should oppose him in whatever way possible.

The Hindu Angst:

I think that the point eklavya makes about 1947 is an important one and is behind the growing popularity of Modi. A growing number of hindus is starting to think that they were cheated in 1947; they thought that they had gotten a country of their own just as Muslims had gotten theirs. They expected any Muslims who remained in India to behave something like dhimmis in a Muslim country. But a small hindu elite cheated them and declared India to be a secular country which was no more of Hindus than it was of Muslims.

For a while, remaining Muslims who bore the blame for dividing the country, did act like 'dhimmis' and did not raise their voices. However, the new generation of Muslims does not carry any such guilt and is not afraid to show its allegiance to the ummah. This is creating anger among the hindus, especially the educated hindus, which really came into open after the Shah Bano case. Hindu nationalism has become a potent factor since then, and not only in the BJP. If Modi or someone else succeeds in making Ummah the issue in an election in the garb of terrorism/national security etc. the chances of his/her winning the election cannot be ruled out.

Re: # 91 kaal

I don't think Urstruly really has any difficulty in understanding hinduism - he is just being obnoxious and condensceding... this dude claims to be a "surya-vanshi" rajput - "suryvanshi" does not come from any bedouin text, does it?

Hey Chalta, long time!

Madhuri dixit's writhing fat torso has greater value inhering within it than does any religion.

What were these kaal-lites thinking?!! LOL

Again, welcome back.

------------


DrSahib, agreed, Sir!

To that perfectly described temporal view, we can add the cross-sectional detail: lots of quite different things (but not every imaginable thing) can be 'Hinduism' simultaneously. And just as some aspects last longer than others, at any given time, some elements are more widespread than others. Nothing lasts forever to eternity and nothing is ever totally universal to the last soul, all being man-made.

It's actually very simple if you accept it as a valid way of thinking. It's either the acceptance or not that separates one from the other.

Yaar Eki, hinjews have the uncanny ability to dilute godly perfection to its most humanly derivations. Sort of back to basics. I remember a few kaal-lites back in 1996, five years after the reforms, who were insisting on the corruption that western thought, economics and society was beginning to have in India. They blamed madhuri dixit's writhing fat torso on a maruti-suzuki as some corruption of hindu purity and how different the hinjews are from the west...parampara, sanskaar and all that shyte (Much like the garbage I hear about islam being corrupted)

Moral of the story is that in a world where information, capital and people can move at unprecedented speeds. Nothing will remain pure (which itself is a stupid concept).

In a few centuries we will all look like derek jeter and laugh at jesus ganesh allah ji for keeping us in the dark and separate from each other.

My understanding of 'hinduism' is very simplistic and helps me to understand the changing practices over time. This is a 'religion'if people must label it so; which has evolved over time and has been enriched by experiences, observations and wisdoms of earthly people and its very being and the code of practice has not been prescribed or dictated by God. Hence, being meat/beef eaters at some time and then becoming veetarians is perfectly understandable.

LOL, GT! I believe most Hindus are idiots like us.

It's just that we have thrown them a huge curve ball by NOT rethinking Hinduism after the appearance of semitic religions. Most Hindus get confused and don't know what to think when confronted with the semitic mindset.

Take that challenge off the table, and most Hindus will have no trouble at all. Leave those on the table, as our leaders chose to do in 1947, and all kinds of relationships become problematic, as Urstruly has quite accurately observed.

(I know, you don't agree with all of that, but IMO, most chowkie Hindus will have few objections to your definition, IF they were not looking at semitic religions.)

#91 Posted by Eklavya:

"But GT, that is not YOUR Hinduism, it has to be the Hinduism of all thinking people who KNOW that Hinduism is NOT some god's gift to mankind."

OK it includes you, me and a couple of more idiots and that is it. The political aspect of the divide and the political aspirations of those who fall exactly on the divide is, perhaps, a subject too broad to be discussed here. However, I believe that on that issue you and I will agree more than we will disagree.

"the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities "

wow, GT, no way could I have put this so succinctly yet accurately!

But GT, that is not YOUR Hinduism, it has to be the Hinduism of all thinking people who KNOW that Hinduism is NOT some god's gift to mankind.

Now, I do run that approach down as 'traditional Hinduism' and point to political/logical problems that that approach runs into, but am glad to know that we are rooted at the same place.

-----------------

Urstruly, the point you raise IS an interesting and important one. TS has raised it before. And even chaltahai once hinted that I should accept mirzais as 'Hindus.'

Basically, Hindus would have no problem accepting anyone who calls himself a Hindu (sometimes even if they don't call themselves Hindus, as in the case of sufis). It's only a POLTICAL person like me who keeps crying (in wilderness) that sufis (and others) cannot be Hindus so long as they politically identify themselves (that is, prefer to formally count themselves) as non-Hindus.

It will require a VERY SMALL shift in the position of many 'Muslims' to turn them into good Hindus, not only politically but also intellectually. You may ask why even that tiny shift may be needed, why a Muslim be a Hindu and still believe in the basics of Islam (Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is this only god's prophet, and this only god called allah sent his last message to mankind through Muhammad in the form of Quran).

This is where, I believe, traditional Hinduism has some logical gaps, which need to be filled.

I suspect if you had difficulty 'understanding' Hinduism, that could be because of those logical gaps within Hinduism as Hindus have understood their religion for the last thousand years (since the arrival of Islam on India's borders).

#78 Posted by Urstruly,

Urstruly,

Quadianis can call themselves Hindus if they so wish. You too can, no problem. Do you remember FV? She did not believe in God, but enjoyed and respected festivals and traditions associated with Islam. And identified herself with Islam. She would give a damn as to whether you considered her a Muslim or not. I (and perhaps kaal) would call her a Hindu. She perhaps would not like it. And I would apologise. In other words, the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities is what defines a Hindu FOR ME.

As for your not understanding double-speak, you may want to start by trying to understand yourself.

Re: # 86 kaal

good point...

Thanks, bhatti ji! That is precisely the point. There is NOTHING logical in any of this. It is a purely a religio-political fight.

When people try to 'rationalize' one side or the other's viewpoint, they are just being hyper smart. And somehow, I don't like such smart people. They just come across as dishonest warriors who don't have the moral courage to dress up as warriors, leaving that dirty job to neanderthals like us who are accused of all manner of unnecessary evil. :)