How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

Re: # 56

Dear Raam, stop pretending to be Allah. Don't abuse.

May God excuse you too Mr. Slyder.

Eklavya ji,

I am not competent enough to judge the merits of this article or its authenticity, but some comments seem to praise the article. Similarly, some also disputed the conclusions. But all this apart, your assertion that this article has some political angle to it is beyond me. This is what urstruly is also referring to. The explanation you came up with; well frankly, they also just shot above my head. Definately, the reason could be nothing else but my position as an outsider.

So, can you please try again, keeping in mind our abrahamic state of mind looking for things in black and white.

BTW I know for sure that in rural Pakistan Punjab, cow dung is used as a fuel, and even as a mixture with mud to coat the mud floors and mud walls. I have seen it personally done.

regards,

khalid

bhatti ji, no problem at all. This is a problem entirely manufactued by Hindu leaders in 1947, so it has to be hard for any outsider - not just those with an abrahamic state of mind - to grasp.

First, can we think of ANY condition(s) under which killing and eating a cow or a pig or a dog or any other animal may be an out and out POLITICAL act?

----------

GT, ustruly bhai, ...will be back in a little while. As usual, you guys make discussions worth the trouble, and obviously instructive. Thanks.

ok, this can be made even easier. Let's forget cow/pig/dog/man.

Can we think of ANY conditions under which the mere ACTS of eating and charity (say, giving food away to the poor) can be exclusively POLITICAL ACTS?

I looked with curiosity at this article and the interacts that followed. Great going. The article is well-researched, I must say. No issues with that. Dont mix up academically researched articles with petty politics. Politicians cling to every issue and try to tweak them to suit their purposes. So, forget BJP and their friends: they were not present in the Vedic days. They should know the things only from the available texts, as we all do.

bhowmick ji, this discussion has moved far beyond the academicity of this article. Had Mr. Murad A Baig not turned now acknowledged historical facts into political hatchet job, nobody would have objected.

Please understand. The 'regard' many backward and regressive Hindus have for the cow is not based on the fact that the cow was never eaten in India (unless you can tell us otherwise).

On the other hand, if you, like Mr. Murad A Baig, have no respect for people who have silly dietary restrictions based on make-belief logic, be my guest.

Thanks Eklavya ji,

I think I got the point. What I grasped is that:

It is bloody stupid of any nation to eat cow not because they want to eat it but because to wear it as a differentiating badge from someone else.

Equally stupid is the reciprocal act of counter party to consider it as an insult.......

I agree 100% with you if you mean what I stated above...

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. :)

Re: # 86 kaal

good point...

#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.

"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).

#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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.