Religion thread - 7

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 02 Apr 2007 06:05

Banning beef (or cow slaughter) nation wide is not just going to alienate the Muslim population of india ,but also the beef eating folks from some of the north eastern states.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030821/main8.htm

Dr Kharshiing reminded the Prime Minister that beef-eating has always been the traditional food habit of the tribals of Meghalaya. If a ban is imposed on the slaughter of cows, it will disrupt their way of life.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 06:06

vina wrote:Ah.. Alon ji.. We really are kindred souls.


yes, my apologies about the earlier rant on IT/Vity issues ... when the rubber hits the road, our "religious concerns" about a constant availabity of liquor is supreme ...

these Christian oppressors need to understand their evil ways ...

All wine shops are closed in NYC on Sundays as well.. That bothered me into a rage as well. We are not talking of hard liquor .. but just wine like say a cabernet or a shiraz.


of course .. very reasonable, I would say .. however, the Christian Lawmakers are into Torture and Subversion ... shame!

Of course, the Sunday liquor ban is for purely secoolar reasons onlee.


I can see the trials and tribulations that you have undergone are making you to express rehearsed claims of lack of torture ... My heart bleeds for your suffering ... Be brave ... these Christian Tyrants will ultimately be defeated ... Believe in your Faith ... Alcohol is superior to some Christian Silliness ...

Nothing at all to do with the flock of faithful to herded into the Sunday church and not be drunk while listening to the services ..Nothing at all I tell you.. In God we trust of course.


careful there .. the Christian Government is watching ... be vewy careful ...

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 02 Apr 2007 06:12

Some food for thought from http://www.dancewithshadows.com/beefeating.asp

Several states in India on the other hand, eat beef and enjoy it too. Kerala and the north-eastern states have a large number of beef-eaters.

Should one eat an animal that a substantial chunk of the population considers as sacred?

The answer to that would depend on whom you ask. There are many for whom the answer will be no. Why offend others, especially when there are many other kinds of non-vegetarian food you could eat? Here, I suspect that a sizeable chunk of beef-eating Hindus, Muslims and Christians would not want to eat beef if the question is put to them in this way. However, there are many for whom the question means nothing, as they would either want to eat what they feel like eating. And I am sure there would be some Hindus, Muslims and Christians among them too. I do not know if their numbers would be more than those who would not want to eat beef if it offends someone. What if it is not? If more people would prefer not to offend others by not eating beef, does it mean that diets should be decided by a majority vote? In that case, what if the majority was vegetarian or non-vegetarian and felt offended every time someone would not conform to their ideas? Would someone who would not want to offend the non-beef eaters extend that principle to a choice between vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism?

Should the government of the day decided what should constitute an individual's diet, be it based on religious, or say, health considerations?

....................................

We come back to the same question. If the majority would want a ban, is it right to have one? Does democracy mean majority decisions on everything? What if the majority in one state wants something different from the majority in another? What if the majority wants war, or the majority wants a king?

My personal take on the issue goes thus.

I do not like to offend people. If I were asked nicely enough without the slightest element of a threat, maybe I would stop eating beef. I would like to respect the feelings of Hindus.

However, if the question is whether to have a ban or not, I can state that there is a pretty good chance that I will eat beef. No one should be allowed to dictate what I eat, smoke, drink. Individual freedom wins over sentiment.

Recently on NDTV, Rajdeep Sardesai asked BP Singhal why they do not educate people on the merits of not eating the cow. He said they were doing it. So why not have a ban when there is a consensus on a ban, Rajdeep persisted. There was no clear answer. I have a clear answer. Even if there is a consensus, there should not be a ban. Educate me to hell about the demerits of beef-eating, and I would be happy to listen and make up my own mind.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 06:14

Vishy: I have no problem with SD. In fact, if you notice, I have stayed out of the entire religious discussion here, stepping in only to discuss the political aspects of the discussion.

Does individual rights more important that well being of society?


I think individual rights lead to the well being of society. I also think that death and destruction have always accompanied those that have been defenders of "the greater good of society." There is an implicit elitism involved here, in that a select few believe they know what this greater good is, and since the "greater good" is often intangible, many things can be justified in the name of the "greater good."

*I* don't know what is the "greater good", but I do know when a person has been killed, assaulted, battered or had his property stolen, and that this tangible situation makes it easy to recognize that "bad" has been done, and then makes it easy to determine what an objective punishment should be.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 06:14

Calvin wrote:Alok - If this is a discussion of "majority rules", it is irrelevant how important it is to *me*. Since, by definition, I am a minority of one.


now you're talking ... welcome to the world of suppressed minoritie of one ... I am impressed that you have lived your life without having experienced it thus far ...

now, get ready for the answer ... you don't matter ... period ... look it up.

Given this "majority rules" in order to understand the extent to which the "majority" can "rule", are *any* rights that are inalienable under any circumstance.


none whatsoever ... if you align with the majority, beg and whine, you will have "rights" ...

otherwise, join the club ... welcome buddy, you've been in ignorant wilderness for far too long ... :)

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 06:17

are *any* rights that are inalienable under any circumstance?

none whatsoever ... if you align with the majority, beg and whine, you will have "rights" ...


At least I know where you stand on this. Now the question is whether you think this is a preferable state of affairs, or not?
Last edited by Calvin on 02 Apr 2007 06:23, edited 1 time in total.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 02 Apr 2007 06:22

I think individual rights lead to the well being of society. I also think that death and destruction have always accompanied those that have been defenders of "the greater good of society." There is an implicit elitism involved here, in that a select few believe they know what this greater good is, and since the "greater good" is often intangible, many things can be justified in the name of the "greater good."

Please give me your definition of DEMOCRASY. Doesn't ELITISM antithesis to concept of Democracy? Are you one of those who casually say Indian voters are illiterate and hence can be taken for ride by selected few ?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 06:24

Calvin wrote:
are *any* rights that are inalienable under any circumstance?

none whatsoever ... if you align with the majority, beg and whine, you will have "rights" ...


At least I know where you stand on this. And now we can respectfully disagree.



all respect all the way ... no need for shortchanging the respect bit ... :)

but, but, where do we stand on the issue of Beef ...

are we agreeing to disagree on the centrality of Beef? ... you raised the "Beef Bogey", so it behooves you to bring closure to the Big Beef Issue, does it not? ...

there is no other issue of comparable import, is there? ...

so, why the refusal to settle the Beef Debate?

in the final analysis, where is it that you find yourself on the issue of Beef? ... is it a suppression of your "faith in Beef"? ... what is it that needs to be done to restore your Beef Rights?

let's not cop out by "agreeing to disagree" ... we need a full disclosure of Beef facts ...

what precisely are the Beef Issues? ... let's have them spelled out ... please .. .pretty, please ... :)
Last edited by Alok_N on 02 Apr 2007 06:29, edited 2 times in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 06:28

Vishy: "Democracy" is "majority rule." The vast majority of the voting public throughout the world do not think things through, and vote on emotion, not logic. They are therefore led by the "elite." Most people recognize this, which is why there are generally constitutional democracies. The constitution then guarantees certain inalienable rights.

Additionally, people vote on what is good for them today. Therefore, if you do not smoke, it is much easier to vote against smoking in public places, and so on.

Alok: The issue of beef still stands, because it is an allegory. You think that the majority should get its way on any issue, and that nothing is protected or inalienable.
Last edited by Calvin on 02 Apr 2007 06:38, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 02 Apr 2007 06:35

what is this "consensus" that you bring up? ... there never is "consensus" in any society ... it is always the tyranny of the majority ... I pay $3 per pack of cigarettes because 68% of the idiots in my state decided that the 32% could be taxed with prejudice .


Wrong example. Non-smokers form majority, but they do NOT support robbing the smokers who form minority.

Till date, only case of majority deliberately hurting minority has been on racial/religious reason, where there is a sharp discontinuity and the majority may think, rightly or wrongly, that assimilation is non-option, and so supports extermination. The sect based (shia-sunni, protestant-catholic) or caste based violence happens, but the majority on both sides doesnt support this violence.

eg in US, whites want to re-enslave or exterminate blacks. In islamic countries muslims insist on assimilating or wiping out non-muslims. But no such strong sentiments exists on other dichotomies any where in the world.

IOW, if you hate majority decisions, that is fine. But example you give (tax on tobacco) is wrong.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 02 Apr 2007 06:39

Calvin my man I used to think exactly like you. Voters (esp Indian Voters) are not gullible (many are cynical) but please dont accuse that they dont think through. Interact with few in deep interiors you will be shocked how clear they are with their priorities.
If MAJORITY RULE is Democracy and if MAJORITY INDIANS believe that they do or dont want certain practises (esp in India where it is impossible to separate between culture and SD) why is it taken as assault on minority? If these practises are impinging on individual rights such as Life, Property and Practise of faith, will they be curtailed by Indian Constitution? Do you have any faith in the whole Democratic process in India? (If not government but Supreme Court?)

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 06:40

Rahul Mehta wrote:Wrong example. Non-smokers form majority, but they do NOT support robbing the smokers who form minority.


RM-ji, in California, the majority has voted a few years ago to tax the minority ...

it may have been a resonable thing if the "cigarette tax" went towards helping smokers to quit smoking ...

however, the funds have been used to build more Jails and highways ...

is this reasonable?
Last edited by Alok_N on 02 Apr 2007 06:41, edited 1 time in total.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 02 Apr 2007 06:41

Forgot to add, Calvin "Elitism" in Indian voters is only found in section of society which follows "FATWAS".

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 06:42

If these practises are impinging on individual rights such as Life, Property and Practise of faith, will they be curtailed by Indian Constitution?


Seeing the state mandated reservations in private institutions, it appears that the Supremes cannot always be counted on. Please note that this should have no religious connotations associated with "private". In fact, it is likely that the vast majority of private institutions are "hindu" owned.

C'est la vie. It sucks to be a minority

"Elitism" in Indian voters is only found in section of society which follows "FATWAS"


Only? Surely you jest.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 06:45

Calvin wrote:Alok: The issue of beef still stands, because it is an allegory. You think that the majority should get its way on any issue, and that nothing is protected or inalienable.


well, at least now it is an allegory rather than "central" ...

what I think about "inalienable" is that such concepts have been appropriated by the majority ...

so yes, the concept exists, but it is of no measuarable consequence ...

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 02 Apr 2007 06:47

And whats wrong in reservation in Private institute? I personally know many people who benefited tremendously from reservation. By birth I belong to caste which doesn't get any reservation benefits (ie Brahmin) but I fully support the reservation policy as long as it does not cross 50%. Anyhow I think there is another thread for this discussion.
Added later: Does reservation policies apply to minority institutes? Please read about the law in detail and also Supreme courts current directive.
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 02 Apr 2007 06:58, edited 1 time in total.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 02 Apr 2007 06:49

Quote:
"Elitism" in Indian voters is only found in section of society which follows "FATWAS"


Only? Surely you jest.

Please enlighten me.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 02 Apr 2007 06:50

Rahul Mehta wrote:
what is this "consensus" that you bring up? ... there never is "consensus" in any society ... it is always the tyranny of the majority ... I pay $3 per pack of cigarettes because 68% of the idiots in my state decided that the 32% could be taxed with prejudice .


Wrong example. Non-smokers form majority, but they do NOT support robbing the smokers who form minority.



OT :

But why is smoking banned, in public places isn't it because my non smoker friends want to live a 100 years at the expense of my "Individual Freedom". While we both agree to lift the bill for all kinds of pollution which we are collectively affected [or. do they want somebody to share the mentioned misc. taxes for "their" lifetimes ]. Isn't that "Rule of Majority".

PS: It takes ~15 mins ,18 floors , 200 mts, 4 times a day ... and then I have to make up time ... :(( :((
Last edited by Tilak on 02 Apr 2007 07:03, edited 1 time in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 06:54

This is from an email I received from a non-member watching this discussion:

Hi Valkan, You have posted very nicely in this thread and I certaily have learnt a lot about Advaita from your posts. Thank you for that.

That said, you are dismissing Kumar’s concerns and arguments a bit too impulsively (IMHO). The claims that Advaita (as you have outlined) is:

1) without axioms

2) scientific (this was not claimed by Valkan, in all fairness, but by others) - are not well substantiated in my opinion.

Heres why I think so: In your beautiful post in the previous incarnation of this thread, you start your explanation with these sentences:

What we are trying to understand here is the elusive concept of "Truth". What is the deepest Truth must necessarily be so always and everywhere. Truth must be an ABSOLUTE Reality. If so, then Absolute Reality can only be defined as that reality which cannot be negated in ANY locus in Space-Time.


Here you have started with a well-accepted definition of “Absolute Realityâ€

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 02 Apr 2007 06:57

Calvin wrote:
If these practises are impinging on individual rights such as Life, Property and Practise of faith, will they be curtailed by Indian Constitution?


Seeing the state mandated reservations in private institutions, it appears that the Supremes cannot always be counted on. Please note that this should have no religious connotations associated with "private". In fact, it is likely that the vast majority of private institutions are "hindu" owned.

C'est la vie. It sucks to be a minority


Ah.. now you have hit upon the truth. You are right that the majority of "private" institutions are Hindu and certainment.. It sucks to be a minority.. These are not mutually incompatible.

I humbly submit that there is really no "majority" in India (just like there is no clear "majority" in California) .. It is just too diverse and fragmented (vertically religion wise and horizontally caste wise) and this entire minority /majority thing is invented by interested parties, primarily to form interest groups and dole out patronage.

And much of this minority "persecution" complex in India is certainly manufactured.

As a rule I never comment on religion related issues and I have refrained from posting in this thread , because it gets derailed on emotions and religion /faith is not exactly rational. .. I will lay off after this post.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Hate to beat up on Calvin

Postby Rien » 02 Apr 2007 06:59

But I'm afraid I have to agree to pile on you. You claim that beef eating is "oppression" after having agreed:

1.) It's not an important element of Christianity
2.) IT IS important to Hindus

My support this for precisely the reasons you are against it. It is about time the majority Hindu community started asserting itself. I am one of those minorities, a real minority in India, an atheist. Let's look at how I would be treated under a real Christian Government or a Muslim government. I know damn well that I would rather a strong Hindu Jihad against minorityism. It is not acceptable for one person to indulge in activities the majority find offensive. The only reason Muslims and Christians indulge in cow slaughter is deliberate provocation. I myself never eat beef or went purely vegetarian to please my parents and/or my nani. I'm sure many of us have. Yet I enjoy eating meat.

Are my parents oppressing me? I conformed to their rules that I did not believe in because bringing a cow and slaughtering it in front of them(Like say Muslims) would be rightfully considered blatant provocation.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 02 Apr 2007 07:04

CPrakash wrote:
Alok_N wrote:[

I was p*ssed no end that I could not buy booze on a Sunday in Pennsylvania ... bothered me to a rage ...
:lol:


Thats because booze outlets (hard likkers like whisky and vodka) in Pennsylvania are run by the state govt and they take a holiday on sundays? :P - you could have always bought beer (Which is sold by the pvt outlets onlee)..


So glad you made that comment.

In the great State of Georgia, I cannot buy any alcohol, not even beer or wine, on a Sunday.

Recently a bill was introduced in the state legislature to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine on a Sunday. The Governor and a group of legislators (guess which religion's views they claimed to represent) killed it before it got to the floor. The Governor made a public statement to the effect that "if you cannot plan your purchases to stock up on beer on Saturday, you are ....."

A majority of letters to the local rag (from their names they seem to be followers of this same religion) support lifting the ban, yet no dice.

My rights are so violated. :cry:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 07:11

CPrakash wrote:
Whats the beefeating population in india? See my post above for an idea.


What post?

Are you suggesting that 130 milion Muslims eat beef?

I believe you haven't actually spoken to Indian Muslims about their dietary habits.

On a different note - I am fascinated by the subject of "strange bedfellows"

One example is a horde of Muslims and another horde of shiv sainiks violently protesting the male-female liaisons of Valentines day.

All Muslims eat beef therefore you are treading on Muslim rights is another curious creator of "strange bedfellows"

An all muslims eat beef suggestion throws into the dustbin all vegetarian Muslims as well as those Muslims who deliberately do not eat meat. A large number of Muslims are converts in India and retain many cultural characteristics that they had, including the avoidance of beef.

So the sentiment that "seeks to please" Muslims by saying 'Oh I am sure you are upset by a cow slaugther ban" is joining the "Hindoo Fundoos" by dismissing all Muslims as being incapable of retaining any former Hindu cultural characteristics.

Strange bedfellows - like I said.
Last edited by shiv on 02 Apr 2007 07:20, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 07:15

Tilak wrote:
Would be correct if the Indian Government, lets the vendors sell for one day in month/year and let people stock up or) let them switch to chicken ?


Why dont we offer horse meat year round and also export it worldwide.
Horse meat to replace beef meat.
Last edited by svinayak on 02 Apr 2007 07:27, edited 1 time in total.

Sajan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 23:52

Postby Sajan » 02 Apr 2007 07:17

AnandK,
You claimed I am spreading misinformation, but it appears you never responded to the issues that I posed here.

Have you heard of "ezhava memorial" ? I am posting the following for your benefit. I think that should be enough to prove how under the travancore monarchy, lowercastes and minorities were systematically discriminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezhava
A sizeable part of the Ezhava community, especially in central Travancore and in the High Ranges, embraced Christianity during British rule, fed up with the injunctions of caste system enforced by the Monarchical state. The Ezhava Memorial" was a charter of human rights drafted by the Ezhava community, the endorsement of which by the Travancore State was a condition that they set forth, were they not to convert to Christianity en masse


Unlike other states in India, Travancore (and even Kerala) was in a unique situation, as far as the caste equilibrium was concerned (probably because a large section of keralites were budhists to start with and with the receding budhist influence, they were all lumped in as lower castes). The three so-called upper castes (brahmin, kshathriya, vaishya) were so few in number ( < 10% of the entire population at any point in time) that the king was forced recruit from the lower castes like Nairs for his army.

However, the caste system under the monarchy was so bad that Swami Vivekananda described kerala as a "lunatic asylum" when he visited kerala in 19th century.

Temples in kerala practice discrimination even today. It was not too long ago, when the son of Vayalar Ravi (a Congress leader and current UPA cabinet minister) got married at Guruvayoor temple, he was forced to pay for a "punyaham" (purification) ceremony because his son was not considered a hindu (Ravi's wife, Mercy, is a christian).

Coming back to Kodungalloor, are you going to deny that the it was originally a buddhist shrine ? What do you think is the basis of the desecration ceremony ("kaavu theendal") that exist in that temple ? I don't think it has got anything to do with the tantric worship that Valkan is talking about.

It could be the commomeration of victory over buddhists. Profane songs may have been used to drive out budhist monks from the temple and neighboring monasteries with support from the ruling kings of that era.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 02 Apr 2007 07:18

shiv wrote:
Sajan wrote:It is not a "cow thingy", it is a question of individual rights.

Shiv made a comment that people can eat a dead cow instead of resorting to cow-slaughter. I showed an example of what happened to dalits who skinned a dead cow and how the perpetrators have escaped the consequences. In this forum itself, example of raping a woman is being put up as a justification for mob violence in the event of cow-slaughter.


Speaking of cows - part of my public health training in medical college was to visit an abbatoir where we were given a demonstration of how cows were killed so that people could get comfort from the time gap between death and plate and call it meat rather than carrion.

The feet are tied up and the cow is tripped so it is lying on its side.

Every cow has a fold of skin running down its neck from chin to chest. The skin is grasped firmly in one hand and a long knife in the other hand is used to slice "shika-shika-shika" through the skin, muscle. windpipe and arteries.

Once the arteries are cut, profuse bleeding starts and the cow is lying on a slight incline that leads to a gutter into which the enormous pool of blood flows. I suspect that if cow are like humans and have 70 ml blood per Kg - a 400 Kg cow will bleed 28 liters - or two buckets of blood.

The cow kicks about a bit - fruitlessly since the legs are tied and it breathes a bubbly breath trough the cut windpipe before it dies. I believe that halal meat requires that the animal bleeds to death.

After that is is ready for skinning and carving to become your yummy steak. Has anyone actually seen this or done it? It's an amazing experience.


I have alsways suspected that if people in the US had to slaughter and butcher their own meat they would eat far less of it. We are so removed from the process where it is already portioned, chilled and wrapped in plastic, that we don't even associate it with the animal. I have had to butcher a large animal (deer) and it is not fun work. The smell when you open the body cavity.... Do humans smell like that when they are opened for surgery?

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 02 Apr 2007 07:20

Things move so fast on these threads.

Kakkaji,

Sorry for the late response

- I too find the coupling of Judeo-Christian dominance and success at building societies that advance technologically and offer a decent minimum standard of opportunities to all deeply irritating.

I usually ask people if they *REALLY* believe Europe and the West today be struggling with poverty, disease, and technological catch-up today if it had never adopted Christianity?

Where after all did Greece and Rome stand without Christianity?

That's the point at which all but the most deeply fundamentalist start to reconsider.

- yes, of course Jesus and Christianity began as Jewish sects.

This was a time when most Jewish groups prosetlysed and accepted converts. The Nazarenes were no different in that regard.

But Christianity drifted farther away from Judaism because control of doctrine drifted away from Jews and towards non-assimilated Gentiles (mostly Greeks). Conversion outpaced Jewish assimilation.

Constantine is the ultimate example of this. A Roman general, and a man who as far as anyone can tell never attended a service, and only converted to Christianity on his deathbed.

As Ramana pointed out, this man nevertheless decided what 'official' Christianity was going to be.

This man was more Roman than anything else. It was the Pre-Christian Roman Empire who decimated the Jewish population and forcibly scattered them, who made it capital offence for Jews to return to Jerusalem, who instituted a special Jew tax, who periodically banned Jews from Rome, etc.

Sectarian rivalry has been a fact of Jewish life for thousands of years- but it was very rarely that differences were violent. But when you combine sectarian rivalry with Roman Empire's tradition of slavery, its wilingness to use extreme force against any within its borders who reject the official religion (Pagan or later Christian), etc, it is a bad mix.

The reformation took the Christian church away from the state but I would again agree with Ramana that the rejection of religion in government did not come from within Christianity itself, but rather from Pre-Christian cultural tendencies within Germanic and Celtic cultures in Western Europe.

In the end Christian fundamentalists are difficult because they refuse to see that the history of Christianity (ie dominant trends within the religion) were shaped largely by imperfect human beings, and some of them, particularly Constantine, were not even remotely religious and yet made fundamental changes.




Alok,

I think we are talking past one another.

Religion's USP is not just about the ultimate nature/laws of the universe, which of course physics grapples with.

It also spends a lot of effort on the nature of consciousness, the origin of life, etc.

That is why I say those in esoteric physics are not the only scientists who are in a position to comment on various religion's degree of congruency with science.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 07:28

Sajan wrote:
Unlike other states in India, Travancore (and even Kerala) was in a unique situation, as far as the caste equilibrium was concerned (probably because a large section of keralites were budhists to start with and with the receding budhist influence, they were all lumped in as lower castes).


What is this caste equillibrium

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 02 Apr 2007 07:33

shiv wrote:
CPrakash wrote:
Whats the beefeating population in india? See my post above for an idea.


What post?

Are you suggesting that 130 milion Muslims eat beef?

I believe you haven't actually spoken to Indian Muslims about their dietary habits.

On a different note - I am fascinated by the subject of "strange bedfellows"

One example is a horde of Muslims and another horde of shiv sainiks violently protesting the male-female liaisons of Valentines day.

All Muslims eat beef therefore you are treading on Muslim rights is another curious creator of "strange bedfellows"

An all muslims eat beef suggestion throws into the dustbin all vegetarian Muslims as well as those Muslims who deliberately do not eat meat. A large number of Muslims are converts in India and retain many cultural characteristics that they had, including the avoidance of beef.

So the sentiment that "seeks to please" Muslims by saying 'Oh I am sure you are upset by a cow slaugther ban" is joining the "Hindoo Fundoos" by dismissing all Muslims as being incapable of retaining any former Hindu cultural characteristics.

Strange bedfellows - like I said.


You are right, I was very insensitive to the vegetarian muslims - must be because i havent seen any in my part of the country. maybe there are several in karnataka, but very few in AP. But this one shoe fits all wont work throughout. Some state governments might get away with banning cow slaughter, but not all - certainly in AP you cant.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 02 Apr 2007 07:33

SriKumar wrote:
Kumar wrote:Srikumar, please look at the following example.
May be A can't deny the subject in himself. But B can deny the subject in A. Budhist shunyavAda constructed a logical system denying everything, i.e. everything is shunya, the object, the observer, the observation and even Wikipedia. In that system even A denies the subject in himself.

By positing the undeniable existence of the subject, you are creating an axiom.
"I am" is a great axiom because most people would relate to it. Not that it is not an axiom.

Intriguing. Definitely a line of thought worth pursuing. But all I can say that one has to start somewhere, and if that 'somewhere' is always labled as 'faith' (and by implication, any conclusion drawn from this 'starting point' is irrelevant because it is based on faith), then it becomes a problem to start any discussion, let alone pursue a discussion. It almost seems to suggest that any discussion is useless. But the concept of 'A' denying the subject in himself is definitely intriguing (begs the question: if there is nothing to start from, where do you go from there :) ) .

My point about "faith" is not to claim it is useless. IMO vedanta is based on "experiences" of the upanishadic Rishis. To have a "faith" in those experiences as axioms, and to derive a philosophical system from those experiences taken as axioms is just fine. My objections were to the "scientific-logical" claims.

Regarding your earlier questions about "axioms" in advaita, I was referring to Valkan's original post which summarized his argument. I think he has a much more detailed argument, which it would be good to see, but for now we have what he posted.

I am quoting that post below, which Valkan claims contains no axioms, in case you wish to do some "axiom hunting".
S.Valkan wrote:As you folks wish.

I'll try a brief logical explanation WITHOUT the need to take recourse to scriptures.

This may put some to sleep, drive some others to madness. So bear with me.

What we are trying to understand here is the elusive concept of "Truth".

What is the deepest Truth must necessarily be so always and everywhere.

Truth must be an ABSOLUTE Reality.

If so, then Absolute Reality can only be defined as that reality which cannot be negated in ANY locus in Space-Time.

Now, logically, anything in the 'past' is nothing but memory, and anything in the 'future' is nothing but imagination.

They are BOTH contradicted in what is the 'Present' ( NOW).

Similarly, what is NOT here is contradicted HERE.

So, essentially, the ONLY incontrovertible truth is that of the 'immediate present' ( HERE and NOW ).

But what is this 'Present' ?

In one instant, the 'present' will become the 'past'.

So, obviously, the 'Present' is simply ONE instant of experience.

Now, what experience does anyone/anything have in ONE instant that is NEVER contradicted ?

The CONTENT/OBJECT of an experience in one instant is contradicted in the next.

But there is one experience that is NEVER contradicted,- the experience of the existence of the experiencer.

So, the only self-evident ( uncontradictable ) experience is "I AM",- the experience of Existence of the experiencer.

But even my concept of "I" is a matter of a whole lot of axioms, which are all not necessarily self-evident.

'I' can refer to the body(I am tall), senses( I am near-sighted), mind(I am unhappy), intellect(I am successfull) and so on.

So, this "I" is contradicted from one instant to another.

This cannot be the uncontradictable SUBJECT of the experience from instant to instant.

So, what is that uncontradictable 'I' that is the experiencer ?

Since there can be no experience without a Subject ( Experiencer ), and 'I' am the Subject of ALL that I experience at every instant ( if I am not experiencing, WHO is ?), 'I' must be the irreducible SUBSTRATUM of ALL my experience.

So, what is this irreducible substratum ?

The only self-evident, irreducible component of all my experience is "AM", or - more precisely - "IS". ........ Strike 1.

Object IS. Thought IS. Emotion IS.

The 'IS' is ALWAYS present in all experience.

This "IS" is an experience of Existence in general.

Now, what is the difference between Existence and Non-Existence ?

This is the most difficult part to grasp.

Think deeply.

The difference is simply the AWARENESS of Existence.

So, Existence is synonymous and coterminus with Awareness. One cannot be conceived without the other, LOGICALLY. ........ Strike 2.

Now, can there logically be a boundary/limit for Existence ?

If there is such a boundary, it is logically of the nature of Existence too.

So, there can logically be NO LIMIT on Existence.

So, Existence is LIMITLESS. ....... Strike 3.

Now, put all of them together.

Existence/Awareness is Limitless.

So, the uncontradictable experience of the 'Present' is simply that of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness.

This is logically true for ANY experiencer, and ANY locus of experience.

So, ALL experience of the 'Present' is ultimately of the nature of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness ( Satyam Jnanam Anantam ).

Now, logically, if only the experience of the 'Present' is the uncontradicted reality in ANY locus, the ABSOLUTE REALITY in ANY locus must be of the nature of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness.

By definition, Absolute Reality or the "Truth" is "God".

So, the Hindu concept of "God" ( Brahman ) is "Satyam Jnanam Anantam".

Now, since the SUBSTRATUM of ALL my experience is the uncontradictable 'I' ( subject ), and since the Substratum of ALL my experience is Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness, ....

The real 'I' must be Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness as well.

.....

So the real 'I' is non-different from "God" ( Aham Brahman Asmi ).

Just as a Wave is non-different from Water as the underlying absolute reality, although each wave seems to be "different" from each other conceptually as a 'form'.

And this is what the Great Rishis of the Vedas realized 5000+ years ago.


Regarding:
But the concept of 'A' denying the subject in himself is definitely intriguing (begs the question: if there is nothing to start from, where do you go from there :)

Where would you want to go from where? All is shunya in shunyavAda, including here, there wherever...! :)
Last edited by Kumar on 02 Apr 2007 07:47, edited 2 times in total.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Postby Bade » 02 Apr 2007 07:35

It could be the commomeration of victory over buddhists. Profane songs may have been used to drive out budhist monks from the temple and neighboring monasteries with support from the ruling kings of that era.


Why not a simpler explanation like people from Madurai hounding out Kannagi after she burnt Madurai and was hiding in Kodungallor ?

If I recall exactly there are two groups yelling 'theri' (obscenities) that converge on the temple, one from the south and the other from the north. Are they not commemorating the arrival of the grieving TN folks from Madurai from yesteryears ? :lol:

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3901
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Postby hnair » 02 Apr 2007 07:38

Acharya wrote:
Sajan wrote:
Unlike other states in India, Travancore (and even Kerala) was in a unique situation, as far as the caste equilibrium was concerned (probably because a large section of keralites were budhists to start with and with the receding budhist influence, they were all lumped in as lower castes).


What is this caste equillibrium


And some references and links from Sajan please (other than wikipedia). There are a lot of opinions being expressed by him as history.

Anand K, I always thought Marthanda Varma victory actually ended the Nair influence(represented by the Ettuveettil Pillais) in decision making and not vice versa as you mentioned?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 02 Apr 2007 07:42


I usually ask people if they *REALLY* believe Europe and the West today be struggling with poverty, disease, and technological catch-up today if it had never adopted Christianity?


Probably not. It was the monks who kept scholarship alive during the dark ages. They also preserved the ancient texts for the renaissance to study.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 07:44

TSJones wrote:
I have alsways suspected that if people in the US had to slaughter and butcher their own meat they would eat far less of it. We are so removed from the process where it is already portioned, chilled and wrapped in plastic, that we don't even associate it with the animal. I have had to butcher a large animal (deer) and it is not fun work. The smell when you open the body cavity.... Do humans smell like that when they are opened for surgery?


Humans actually don't smell too bad until tissues are rotten from gangrene when the smell is as bad, or worse than a rotting corpse. But the smell of flesh being burned by cautery smells just like meat cooking.

Your point about why people might not eat meat if they had to do their own slaughtering is a valid one and there is a lot more to this story.

I believe that Western nations long long ago decided to adopt "humane" methods of slaughter in which the cattle are first knocked out with an electrical charge to thehead and the culling is done on an unconscious animal.

As far as India is concerned - India in 2007 produces more milk (and methane from cow-fart) than any other country in the world and probably has more head of cattle than any other country.

But in the era when a ban on cow slaughter became a popular idea several social factors were at play. The cow is considered sacred, and that sanctity has come from several factors. I suspect that the usefulness of cattle entered into Hindu folklore and made them sacred.

Cows of course were "wealth" and a family with cows had a steady source of income, dairy products and fuel (dried cowdung). I don't think cow eating has been big in India for centuries - I don't know if there are any written records on the issue.

However (and I am guessing here) "cow eating" re entered Indian life with a bang with the first Islamic invasions. That played havoc with the life of many people in India and Muslims in general are unlikely to be forgiven anytime soon unless there is an active reconciliation or past with present.

The "ban on cow slaughter" is a great political riposte to the forces that were seen as having upset the peace in India in the first place. The "rationale" for initially opposing cow slaughter was that at the time of famine it was important to preserve cows for a vegetarian population and not slaughter them. That rationale no longer holds true.

I believe beef/cow slaughter is very definitely a quid pro for what is perceived as a persistent trampling of Hindu rights by savages.

It can be sorted out and it will be sorted out after there is more widespread acceptance and acknowledgement that Hindus had a particular way of life that was seriously damaged.

The treatment of Hindus in india is seen by Hindus as somewhat similar to apartheid, except that there is no acknowledgement from the alien forces that entered (Islam and the Church) that such discrimination existed.

As long as that occurs - there will be this sort of battle going on in India, a reflection of which is seen in these threads.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Apr 2007 07:47

Johann wrote:Alok,

I think we are talking past one another.

Religion's USP is not just about the ultimate nature/laws of the universe, which of course physics grapples with.

It also spends a lot of effort on the nature of consciousness, the origin of life, etc.


nice towel .. but no dice ... :)

the asertion, mispaced largely as it is, is that "religion" has anything of value to add to the debate about "origin of life" ...

sorry, you don't get such credit for zero effort ... prove that your so called "religion" indeed has something of value to add ...

else, deal with the fact that a Rastafarian, smoking some good ol' Afghani, has an equivalent amount to add to your understanding of origin of life ...

That is why I say those in esoteric physics are not the only scientists who are in a position to comment on various religion's degree of congruency with science.


"say" all sorts of crap you like ... but, then when it comes to providing evidence, crap such as yours fails the ultimate tests ... :lol:
Last edited by Alok_N on 02 Apr 2007 07:52, edited 3 times in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 07:48

shiv wrote:
The treatment of Hindus in india is seen by Hindus as somewhat similar to apartheid, except that there is no acknowledgement from the alien forces that entered (Islam and the Church) that such discrimination existed.

As long as that occurs - there will be this sort of battle going on in India, a reflection of which is seen in these threads.


I would put it as wounded civilization as VS Naipaul says.
It is reclaiming back but modernism has put an entire generation under a 'modern' outlook who are ignoring the resurgence.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 02 Apr 2007 07:49

CPrakash wrote: Some state governments might get away with banning cow slaughter, but not all - certainly in AP you cant.


Any reason's why they "cant get away" ?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 07:51

Tilak wrote:
CPrakash wrote: Some state governments might get away with banning cow slaughter, but not all - certainly in AP you cant.


Any reason's why they "cant get away" ?


If they make the effort they can get away.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 02 Apr 2007 07:51

I think Cow Slaughter is banned in all states except Kerala and either Bengal or Arunachal.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 07:53

Acharya wrote:
I would put it as wounded civilization as VS Naipaul says.
It is reclaiming back but modernism has put an entire generation under a 'modern' outlook who are ignoring the resurgence.


What resurgence Acharya?

It was always there. It never went away. Just because more people are seeing it now does not make it a "resurgence".

Semantics maybe. But I have a point to make.


Return to “Religion Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest