Page 1 of 10

Religion thread - 7

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 14:03
by shiv

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 19:59
by S.Valkan
Calvin,

I was consciously trying to avoid this discussion with you, but you are drawing me into it.

The quote I supplied from Brahma Vaivarta Purana was meant to illustrate WHAT influences many people in the Cow Belt to demand a ban on cow slaughter.

Unlike the Judeo-Christian "bible", the Puranas are NOT the "word of God", and hence carry no weight of "law".

The "Kalau Gavalambham vivarjayet" is neither a burning-bush commandment, nor a Mitzvot law.

At best, it is like the historic Millerite proclamation on when the Apocalypse is due.

So, your latching onto a quote is a childish attempt. It doesn't prove anything, or help you in any way, shape or form.

I could give you more quotes to prove the reverse,- that beef/veal is not only acceptable to Hindus, but suggested for both medicinal nourishment, and as a culinary delight, but then it would serve no purpose either.

Just as a small reminder, neither the Vedas ( Shruti Prasthana ), nor the Gita ( Smriti Prasthana ) - the fountainhead of Hinduism - have any injunction on beef.

Next time you claim 'Gotcha', remember that.

Now, you indicated that a ban on 'beef' and 'slaughter' are co-terminus.

That is laughably illogical.

In states where cow slaughter is illegal, you are quite welcome to import beef from neighbouring states, or beef-exporting nations like Brazil, Argentina, US and Japan. Of course, the price will always be higher. But that's a deal you have to strike between your purse and your palate.

Nobody prevents you from enjoying a Porterhouse steak from a Nebraska Angus, or a Carpaccio from Wagyu/Kobe, slaughtered elsewhere.


You also mentioned that banning the shouting "Fire" is different from the ban on slaughter.

Well, why is shouting "fire" banned in the US ?

Because of the reasoned belief - from PAST experiences - that people respond in a way that can lead to stampede, and death/injury.

The ban on slaughter is based on the same principle. Because of past experiences in the Cow Belt, it is assumed that cow slaughters can lead to communal disturbances, as had occurred several times in the past in recorded history.

The duty of the government is to maintain law and order, and to prevent provocative behaviour that may lead to violence and injury/loss to life, limb and property of citizens.

That's why SUSPECTED "anarchists" are pre-empted from exercising their right to freedom of speech and "peaceful" assembly in the land of the free.

Go figure.

The last point is about tolerance.

For millenia, Hindus have been basically tolerant of religions which always attempted to deride it.

This is in direct contrast to the history of Christianity and Islam.

Even TODAY, in many "progressive" countries where some form of Christianity is the state religion ( like France, Russia etc ), Hinduism is not even legal, leave alone enjoy "equal" status.

A vast majority of Christians deride Hindus ( if not publicly, at least at the back of their mind ) for their "superstition" and "satanic" belief.

Compared to that, India has been a heaven for Christians.

Except some hardcore Bajrangis, most Hindus are accepting of Jesus as an "avatar" of some sort. They find no problems in Christians claiming divinity for Jesus.

Masses of Hindus participate WITHOUT prejudice in Christmas and Easter celebrations all across India,- "X-mas cakes" and trees have become part of Indian cultural tradition in urban areas, even when Christian presence in such cities is insignificantly marginal in most cases.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:07
by Kakkaji
For those who accuse Hindus of being stuck in obscurantism and superstition:

BIBLE HISTORY AS TOURISM

[quote]PETERSBURG, Ky. | Tyrannosaurus rex was a strict vegetarian and lived with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

There were dinosaurs of every kind aboard Noah’s ark. Some dinosaurs managed to hang around until just a few hundred years ago.


The legend of St. George slaying the dragon? That probably was a dinosaur.

Exhibits showing all this and more will be at the Creation Museum, a $27 million religious showcase nearing completion in northern Kentucky.

The museum, in Boone County, is being built by a nonprofit group called Answers in Genesis. It is scheduled to open on Memorial Day. Museum and northern Kentucky tourism officials expect it to be a boon to the region, bringing in at least 250,000 visitors in its first year.

Scott visited the museum recently as part of a British Broadcasting Corp. radio program. Although she didn’t get a tour, she saw enough to know that the museum will be professionally done. And that’s worrisome, she says.

[b]“There are going to be students coming into the classroom and saying, ‘I just went to this fancy museum, and everything you’re telling me is rubbish,’ â€

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:10
by Kumar
S.Valkan wrote:Have you seen me take recourse to 'faith' in any logical presentation of a viewpoint ?

Axioms are faith, whether presented without recourse to scripture or not. Scientific method is just one way to experimentally lend support to the axioms. One critical requirement for picking a scientific axiom is the "falsifiability" criterion. That is there must exist a CURRENTLY FEASIBLE EXPERIPENT which could possibly falsify those axioms.

Vedantic axioms fail the falsifiability criterion, hence are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

If you create a logical syatem irrespective of the scientific method, then it is just like mathematics. You can choose the axioms at your fancy and create your own world of theorems.

A system is "logical" solely in the sense that derivations from its axioms SHOULD NOT LEAD TO CONTRADICTIONS. Nothing more/less is presumed about the physical truth of the axioms or the statements.

A "truth" of a logical system can be defined in the sense of Godel, but if you follow that definition of truth, then you are hit with the Godel's incompleteness theorem. That states that "truths" are a set of statements whose structure is allowed by the rules of construction of those statements. But given ANY set of axioms, some truths (i.e. statements with valid structure), will be left out, i.e. couldn't be derived from those chosen axioms. If you change the axioms, new set of "truths" get left out. If you try to include all the truths, you end with contradictions.

In Godel's sense a logical system of sufficient complexity is either incomplete or inconsistent

So, being merely "logical" is better than being illogical, but not a great solace as far as "truth" is concerned.
In that respect, science is NOT YET Advaita, rather than saying Advaita is not scientific.

Science has a clear scientific method which includes falsifiability. Advaitic axioms are NOT FALSIFIABLE, since there are no currently feasible experiments that could possibly falsify them. So advaita is not scientific.

By saying that science is not yet advaita, you are taking a recourse to "faith" that advaita will turn out eventually to be scientific.
Many a moon ago, I was challenged by a zealous Dvaitin to "prove" Advaita WITHOUT recourse to scriptures or axioms, if Advaita was "so scientific" as claimed by books, blogs, posts and lectures from armchair NRI philosophers.

The fruit of that contemplation effort was presented in that "First Principles" post.

If THAT is not "scientific" enough ( no axioms or "faith" whatsoever ), I don't know what is.

That presentation is NOT SCIENTIFIC. It appears that you took YOUR AXIOMS to be self evident and didn't count thm as axioms, but falsifiability criterion demands more than what some people may consider "self evident".

For example, Euclid's axioms were considered self-evident by him. Until Lobachevsky, Riemann etc showed that changing those axioms gives rise to many new kinds of valid non-euclidean geometries.
His epithet of a neo-Vedantin is based on this apparent disconnect, partly because of which the "scientific" ( aka logical ) edifice of Advaita is compromised by a whole new generation.

If you think scientific = logical, then you have a serious misconception about the issue.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:29
by S.Valkan
Kumar wrote:Axioms are faith, whether presented without recourse to scripture or not.


I am beginning to suspect that you don't read the posts, and simply respond in a knee-jerk fashion.

I asked you to point out ANY axioms that I have used thus far.

I state it once again,- I have used NONE.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

So, there is no question of "axiom" or "faith" in the First Principles post.

Vedantic axioms fail the falsifiability criterion, hence are NOT SCIENTIFIC.


Once again, you responded without reading.

I clearly stated that science ( including "falsifiablity" ) requires a subject-object dichotomy.

In that sense, it is science that has not yet attained Non-duality/Advaita , rather than the other way round.

Aside from this fact, the LOGIC used in Vedanta is non-different from scientific analysis.

This is qualitatively different than saying "there is a pink elephant onj the dark side of Uranus which visits my refrigerator and is invisible when you open the refrigerator or put any detection equipment in it".

That is not falsifiable EVEN though there is a subject-object duality involved.

THAT is unscientific.

Not so with Advaita, which demonstrates the logic of non-duality from first principles with NO axiom.

If you find that objectionable, prove it.

That states that "truths" are a set of statements whose structure is allowed by the rules of construction of those statements. But given ANY set of axioms, some truths (i.e. statements with valid structure), will be left out, i.e. couldn't be derived from those chosen axioms. If you change the axioms, new set of "truths" get left out. If you try to include all the truths, you end with contradictions.


I can understand your new-found fascination with Kurt Godel, but you are barking up the wrong tree.

Once you can show me ANY axiom used, Godel's model is applicable.

Since NO axiom has been used, the "Incompleteness Theorem" doesn't apply.

For example, Euclid's axioms were considered self-evident by him. Until Lobachevsky, Riemann etc showed that they are not self-evident at all. In fact changing those axioms gives rise to many new kinds of non-euclidean geometries.


Wrong analogy in the first place.

This is the reason why I refrain from posting serious analysis.

Euclidean axioms are not self-evident because it involves axioms about OBJECTS.

There is no such axiom in the First Principles Post.

Either you understand that, or you don't.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:34
by Kumar
S.Valkan wrote:I asked you to point out ANY axioms that I have used thus far.

I state it once again,- I have used NONE.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Let me put it this way. If you haven't used "axioms" then your construction is not logical. Period.

This for a complex system like advaita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:38
by S.Valkan
Kumar wrote:Let me put it this way. If you haven't used "axioms" then your construction is not logical. Period.


That's the most profoundly illogical axiom, ever.:lol:

Existence of the Subject is an uncontradictable(self-evident) fact, and not an axiom.

Otherwise WHO is positing the axioms/logical arguments ?

Even Formal Logic, that you point out from Wikipedia, assume the existence of the Logician.

Go figure.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:43
by Alok_N

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:43
by Kumar
Valkan,

Read the link. Or find some other source. Your ideas of "logical" and "scientific" seem to be your own, not what is generally accepted.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:43
by ShauryaT
shiv wrote:In fact let me make a suggestion to anyone who is willing to take it up and I say right now that what I am suggesting is pure rabble rousing.

Walk into the arms of a nearby evangelist and allow him to talk you into the benefits of converting, and bait him into saying what is bad. Then start a public interest litigation against him for making a nuisance of himself and insulting your religion.

It is all about individual rights isn't it? This has nothing to do with religion.


Shiv, Something similar has already been tried in the 80's in Calcutta, where the Quran was held as a book inciting violence against non Muslim groups, the courts chickened out - saying books of "god" are out of purview of the court system.

The word “secularâ€

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:53
by S.Valkan
Kumar wrote:Your ideas of "logical" and "scientific" seem to be your own, not what is generally accepted.


Good that you are now coming down to Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

I clearly stated at the outset, and I will repeat it again for your benefit :

SCIENCE - as it CURRENTLY is - requires a subject-object dichotomy.

The Copenhagen Principle and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox shows that the laws of science break down because of this AXIOM of science.

Yet, there is no solution to this problem YET.

In that sense, Science has NOT YET reached the level of Advaita Vedanta.

However, the LOGIC behind Advaita follows a RIGOROUS Reductio Ad Absurdum and Regressus Ad Infinitum Analysis, the bedrocks of Logic and Scientific Analysis.

As far as FORMAL logic is concerned, the INHERENT AXIOM in it is the existence of the SUBJECT ( Who is trying to use logic ?), because self-evident facts are NOT axioms.

That's why Advaita is "logical" WITHOUT any axioms.

Go figure.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 20:57
by SriKumar
Kumar wrote:
S.Valkan wrote:I asked you to point out ANY axioms that I have used thus far.

I state it once again,- I have used NONE.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Let me put it this way. If you haven't used "axioms" then your construction is not logical. Period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
From the above 'If' , it seems like you yourself are not sure whether or not axioms have been used by Valkan. Either he has- if so, please mention them, or he has not. (I don't mean to jump into this discussion, I only say this because I find the conversation interesting).

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:04
by Calvin
Valkan: You believe you are being logical, when you are not. The difference the threat of "communal violence" and crying fire are well understood by anyone who thinks about it. Assertion is not logic.

ShauryaT:
Swami Vivekananda kept on exhorting us that the ideals of our nation ought to be 'Dharma' and 'spirituality', 'renunciation' and 'service', 'tolerance' and 'harmony'. So, Dharma has little to do with gods and the western understanding of the word religion


The difficulty I have is this - a person says that Such-and-such Purana prohibits the slaughter of cows, therefore, communal disturbances may occur; and when this is called out to be a religious directive, we hear "neither the Vedas ( Shruti Prasthana ), nor the Gita ( Smriti Prasthana ) - the fountainhead of Hinduism - have any injunction on beef" - and that THEREFORE this proves that Cow Slaughter is Dharmic without being Religious.

My contention is that for most people this distinction is an irrelevant one. When I say "most people" I talk about the fellows that are on the streets, includng some that were kar sevaks that participated in rath yathras and the like.

QUite frankly, this seems to be allegorical to the jihad as holy war for personal salvation and jihad as war on the kaffir dichotomy that can be trotted out when convenient.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:09
by Alok_N
Calvin wrote:The difference the threat of "communal violence" and crying fire are well understood by anyone who thinks about it. Assertion is not logic.


unless you specify what the difference is, you are also making an assertion.

this is clear to anyone who thinks about it :)

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:11
by Kumar
Srikumar, please look at the following example.

Valkan,

S.Valkan wrote:
Kumar wrote:Let me put it this way. If you haven't used "axioms" then your construction is not logical. Period.


That's the most profoundly illogical axiom, ever.:lol:

Existence of the Subject is an uncontradictable(self-evident) fact, and not an axiom.

Otherwise WHO is positing the axioms/logical arguments ?

Even Formal Logic, that you point out from Wikipedia, assume the existence of the Logician.

Go figure.

Uncontradictable fact (self-evident) AND not an axiom!!

What, pray tell, an axiom means?

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. You yoursself called it "self-evident". Is the subject in Valkan self-evident to a another person or a bacterium or stone?

"I am" is a great axiom because most people would relate to it. Not that it is not an axiom.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:12
by svinayak
Calvin wrote:
The difficulty I have is this - a person says that Such-and-such Purana prohibits the slaughter of cows, therefore, communal disturbances may occur; and when this is called out to be a religious directive, we hear "neither the Vedas ( Shruti Prasthana ), nor the Gita ( Smriti Prasthana ) - the fountainhead of Hinduism - have any injunction on beef" - and that THEREFORE this proves that Cow Slaughter is Dharmic without being Religious.


The only thing I can suggest is that only a Hindu will understand.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:14
by Raju
Acharya wrote:The only thing I can suggest is that only a Hindu will understand.


So are you also comfortable with the fact when Islamists trot out that only Muslims will understand and kaffirs won't understand.

And there is no reason to go convince the kaffir about why we do what we do ?

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:17
by svinayak
Raju wrote:[

What Muslims do in their country does not matter usually but only when they want others to follow what they want the problems starts.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:21
by ShauryaT
Calvin wrote:My contention is that for most people this distinction is an irrelevant one. When I say "most people" I talk about the fellows that are on the streets, includng some that were kar sevaks that participated in rath yathras and the like.
I agree. Notwithstanding some knowlegdable people such as Valkan, the distinctions are meaningless and most people would go on faith. But to term all faith as equal or Sarva Dharma Samabhava is a fallacy, because they are factually different.

So, the question becomes do minorities have a right of veto on the way of life of the majority?
QUite frankly, this seems to be allegorical to the jihad as holy war for personal salvation and jihad as war on the kaffir dichotomy that can be trotted out when convenient.


The above is without basis or fact. It is an experssion of a mindset that has been conditioned by the discourse as controlled by the fifth column in India. It is also an expression of a mind set with little understanding of Hindu theology, practices or history without any evidence to support the above claim. The above is a quick reductionist argument, which equates the hindu way of life with others.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:21
by S.Valkan
Calvin wrote:You believe you are being logical, when you are not. The difference the threat of "communal violence" and crying fire are well understood by anyone who thinks about it. Assertion is not logic.


I asked you to demonstrate it, not by hiding behind what 'anyone who thinks' obfuscation.

Why is crying "fire" any different than other 'preventive' measures ?

Even if you allude to 'cry wolf' parable, that too falls under preventive measure. If people didn't leave due to overuse of 'Fire' cry, there would be death.

To prevent such an incident, the measure is enforced.

Same principle for this ban on cow slaughter. Prevent death/injury to civilians from communal disturbance arising out of real or false accusation of cow slaughter.

Now, "thinking man" Calvin, what is illogical about it ?

My contention is that for most people this distinction is an irrelevant one. When I say "most people" I talk about the fellows that are on the streets, includng some that were kar sevaks that participated in rath yathras and the like.


You are thinking like a typical book-fed Christian.

Hindus don't think like that, Calvin.

Most Hindus in the Cow Belt have an aversion to cow slaughter just as many Hindus have a natural aversion to NON-vegetarian food.

Neither has formal religious injunction.

Don't obfuscate a "tradition" with religious diktat.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:26
by Alok_N
this is sort of interesting ...

if we say that "I am" is an axiom, and then postulate universal existence based on that axiom, then Godel will say that I can not draw any conclusion that is in violation of that axiom ...

So, here we have:

1. Axiom == I am

2. Postulate == You also are.

3. Conjecture == Hence, I am you.

this leads to two possibilities:

1. either "I am not"

2. or "I am You"

:)

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:28
by Raju
>>but only when they want others to follow what they want the problems starts.

this statement requires deeper contemplation

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:30
by SriKumar
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 :) ) .

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:31
by S.Valkan
Kumar wrote:What, pray tell, an axiom means?


An axiom is an assumption you CONSIDER as true for the purpose of further analysis.

It is NOT necessarily self-evident.

May be A can't deny the subject in himself. But B can deny the subject in A.


Illogical statement, as usual.

The AXIOM ( unprovable ) in the above statement is that A and B are BOTH existing.

In the case of A, the logic is from the standpoint of A. The SELF-EVIDENT fact of the Subject is from the standpoint of A.

A has no idea if B is REALLY there, or not. It is NOT self-evident. It is merely a THOUGHT.

The same with B, if B is the one working on the Logic. There, A does not exist.

In BOTH cases, or if the logician is C, D, E, ... , the SUBJECT of the logician is SELF-EVIDENT in ALL cases.

That's what is meant by SELF-EVIDENCE.

It is NOT an axiom by any means.

"I am" is a great axiom because most people would relate to it. Not that it is not an axiom.


Illogical statement.

See above.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:34
by Sajan
In states where cow slaughter is illegal, you are quite welcome to import beef from neighbouring states, or beef-exporting nations like Brazil, Argentina, US and Japan. Of course, the price will always be higher. But that's a deal you have to strike between your purse and your palate.

Nobody prevents you from enjoying a Porterhouse steak from a Nebraska Angus, or a Carpaccio from Wagyu/Kobe, slaughtered elsewhere.

Does this mean that the cow in Nebraska or even Kerala (or wherever cow-slaughter is not banned) was not "slaughtered" ? :twisted:

Or is there a "hindu" cow and a "christian" cow (and "slaughtering "christian" cow in Nebraska is okay) ? :rotfl:

Someone mentioned that in Kaliyug cow-slaughter shouldn't be allowed, does this apply only to a cows in India ?

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:36
by svinayak
Sajan wrote:Or is there a "hindu" cow and a "christian" cow (and "slaughtering "christian" cow in Nebraska is okay) ? :rotfl:

Someone mentioned that in Kaliyug cow-slaughter shouldn't be allowed, does this apply only to a cows in India ?


Yes, I told my American boss once that only the Indian cow was holy and the American cow is not. Hence I can eat the American cow/beef. He was shocked and after that never made any statement about Hindu's at least in front of me.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:42
by Alok_N
Acharya wrote:Yes, I told my American boss once that only the Indian cow was holy and the American cow is not. Hence I can eat the American cow/beef.


I was given this line on Day 2 of my arrival in the US ... I was in the queue at McDonald's when this moment of religious doubt swept over me ... that logic removed all avidya from me, and I started eating beef ... :)

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:43
by Kumar
alok_m wrote:{Valkan,Alok}Ji,
The definition of God that was given by ValkanJi in the previous thread tried to define God "logically". I was curious if you know if someone has done it in formal logic i.e. using syntax of predicate/modal logic ?

Valkan,

Insisting that you don't require axioms for a "logical" system is not going to fly.

Especially for a complex system like advaita.

I mean this seriously. The quote from alok_m is significant. If you or you & him together can formalize your logical system, then that would be a great help.

Especially since I like most of your arguments.

But I think this overemphasis on "scientific" & "logical" claims without the proper backbone is only going to go so far.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:45
by TSJones
Sajan wrote:
In states where cow slaughter is illegal, you are quite welcome to import beef from neighbouring states, or beef-exporting nations like Brazil, Argentina, US and Japan. Of course, the price will always be higher. But that's a deal you have to strike between your purse and your palate.

Nobody prevents you from enjoying a Porterhouse steak from a Nebraska Angus, or a Carpaccio from Wagyu/Kobe, slaughtered elsewhere.

Does this mean that the cow in Nebraska or even Kerala (or wherever cow-slaughter is not banned) was not "slaughtered" ? :twisted:

Or is there a "hindu" cow and a "christian" cow (and "slaughtering "christian" cow in Nebraska is okay) ? :rotfl:

Someone mentioned that in Kaliyug cow-slaughter shouldn't be allowed, does this apply only to a cows in India ?


I had a great comment here but I'm not gonna post it. :lol:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:46
by Calvin
Valkan - Falsely "Crying fire" in a theatre is different from falsely "crying fire" in a parking lot. This is simply because in the former, the people are led to believe that their *life* is at risk, and that they have to act immediately without thought.

In the case of falsely crying fire in a parking lot, the people can determine for themselves whether there is a fire or not, and the false crier is still allowed "free speech". Similarly in "cow slaughter" there is no imminent threat to life or liberty of any human community, that should cause these people to act immediately without thought.

I will ignore your gratuitous "a typical book-fed Christian" but focus on your comment that "Hindus don't think like that" in response to my commentary on kar sevaks. Is it your contention that they were not Hindus, or that they were operating on an imperfect understanding of Hinduism and DHarma?

many Hindus have a natural aversion to NON-vegetarian food.. Neither has a formal religious injunction


Rather than taking your word for it, I did a simple search, and this is what I found:
The fact, however, is that throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable animal, or "aghnya." According to "An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles" (Vol. I, Deccan College, Poona), "aghnya" means "not to be killed or violated" and is used for cows and for waters in the presence of which oaths were taken.

The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow "aghnya" and "Aditi", ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1201/124.html

Now, I am not an expert on these, nor do I care to get into the theology of these, but suffice to say that these are the words being used in the media to justify bans on cow slaughter. Now, the article does not come from a site that intends to ridicule the Hindu faith, so what shall we make of these assertions? Shall we say that they too, do not understand the difference?

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:46
by SriKumar
S.Valkan wrote:
May be A can't deny the subject in himself. But B can deny the subject in A.
Illogical statement, as usual. The AXIOM ( unprovable ) in the above statement is that A and B are BOTH existing.
I am going to fire and run :D!

Methinks the above is i) based on an axiom of some sort, ii) but is not illogical. There's no way B knows what's inside of A, or can sense what A senses e.g. B may be colorblind while A is able to appreciate the bright colors of a hibiscus flower. Not only is it logical, IMHO, it is possible and measurable. Alright, now where are my running shoes.... :) gotta get the hell out before the heavy artillery comes out.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:47
by TSJones
Acharya wrote:
Sajan wrote:Or is there a "hindu" cow and a "christian" cow (and "slaughtering "christian" cow in Nebraska is okay) ? :rotfl:

Someone mentioned that in Kaliyug cow-slaughter shouldn't be allowed, does this apply only to a cows in India ?


Yes, I told my American boss once that only the Indian cow was holy and the American cow is not. Hence I can eat the American cow/beef. He was shocked and after that never made any statement about Hindu's at least in front of me.


I had another great comment here but I'm not gonna post it. :lol:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:49
by svinayak
Thank God. BRF is saved

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:50
by Alok_N
this injection of Cow thingy into the discussion is a low brow attempt at hijacking ...

In the previous thread, I was arguing that Cow in India is same as Dogs and Cats in the US ... it is a cultural thingy and attempts to make it religious are subterfuge ...

Another example ... why is Sunday a Government Holiday in the US and not Friday or Tuesday? ...

TSJ/Calivin,

is that cultural or religious?

why does Sunday remain a Governmental Holiday in India? ... if attempts are made to change it to Tueday, will that be called Saffronization?

I have many more such examples, but I'm not gonna post them ... :wink:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:52
by Alok_N
in fact I have an encyclomedia of great comments, but I am not gonna post them ... :lol:

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:53
by S.Valkan
Kumar wrote:Insisting that you don't require axioms for a "logical" system is not going to fly.


That's why I am not in the pipeline to publish a peer-reviewed thesis on it.

As long as people understand the logic behind Vedanta, that's good enough in my worldview.

The quote from alok_m is significant. If you or you & him together can formalize your logical system, then that would be a great help.


My arguments have been posted, and surely alok_m has access to the archives.

He is welcome to formalise it.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 21:56
by Sajan
Elsewhere I read shiv talking about how hinduism never had political patronage. Not really true.

The princely state of Travancore was ruled by kings who considered themselves as "padmanabha dasan" (servent of Sri Padmanabha, deity in trivandrum). From what I understand, most of the high level positions in govt. were reserved for upper caste hindus at that time.

Hinduism actively derived patronage from the ruling kings, once budhism was on the decline.

BTW, talking about evengelist's message being a nuisance, how many here have heard about "Kodungalloor Bharani" in kerala? (it occurs around this time of the year) I thik that is a much bigger nuisance unless you enjoy listening to profanity. :eek:

This is a festival in a famous temple in kerala (supposedly a budhist/jain shrine at some point) where profane songs are sung as part of the festival and procession through the town. "Bharani pattu" (Bharani song) is synonymous with obscene song in malayali vocabulari. Usually people living in that area shut the doors and stay inside while the procession goes around (to avoid hearing "bharani paattu") during the festival.

Apart from the obscene songs, what I found interesting about Bharani festival was the role of dalits in the whole festival. Dalits have the right to do the pooja in this temple during those days and they use alcohol, chicken and fish as the offering during the pooja. If I remember right, chickens are slaughtered as part of the offering to the deity.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 22:03
by S.Valkan
SriKumar wrote:Methinks the above is i) based on an axiom of some sort, ii) but is not illogical. There's no way B knows what's inside of A.


The ASSUMPTION of the existence of A by B in the first place is the problem.

The Idealist School (Vijnanavada Buddhism ) says that such an axiom is not provable.

But ANY proof or falsification requires the existence of the Prover/Falsifier.

So, there is NO way to disprove the existence of the Subject-A by A.

That's why it is termed SELF-evident. It needs no proof, because TO prove it's existence, you assume its existence ( who is proving it ? ).

In formal logic terms, it is called Petitio Principii.

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 22:04
by Alok_N
S.Valkan wrote:That's why I am not in the pipeline to publish a peer-reviewed thesis on it.

As long as people understand the logic behind Vedanta, that's good enough in my worldview.


mathematics is quite useless for predicting physical reality ... historically, derived theories have rarely been correct ... empirical/heuristic theories suceed much better in science ...

this is why I think that string theory is a bunch of baloney ...

Kumar has not yet critiqued the 4-fold axioms of science because they indeed are falsifiable ...

all attempts at grand unification are ad hoc ... they do not have to test themselves against axioms ...

Advaita is a qualitative description of grand unification ... quantification is the business of science ... like all great discoveries, such an advance will need a principle ... once experimenatally tested, principles simultaneously become Law and Axiom both ...

I don't see any need for peer review prior to publication ...

Posted: 01 Apr 2007 22:08
by JE Menon
Sajan,

I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make. Please clarify.