Religion Thread - 8

Locked
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Religion Thread - 8

Post by Aditya_V »

S Valkan wrote


Aditya Vikrams wrote:
I don't think this is mentioned along with Jada Bharata, it is mentioned when Parikshit meets Kali.I am pretty sure it is not in the purport but actual text itself.


That is your misconception because of English transliteration.

[url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_(Demon) ] The demon Kali versus BhadraKAALI [/url]

Maybe you should consult your Srimad Bhagavatam one more time.


I Don't think its my misconception, I was talking of Parikshit meeting Kali as in the personification of Kali yuga.
Anyway can we agree to disagree? since I think both of us are reconciled to each of our beliefs, this aurgument can go on forever.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Aditya Vikrams wrote: I Don't think its my misconception, I was talking of Parikshit meeting Kali as in the personification of Kali yuga.
Sorry, that's your utter misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_%28Demon%29

The pronuciation in the case of Parikshit's Kali( कलि ) demon personifying the "age" of Kaliyuga is different from the pronunciation of KALI (काली), the Shakti.

Either you didn't read the text properly, or are loathe to admit it.

There is no "agree to disagree" business here.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

Alok_N wrote:
if you believe in science, then there was NO BIOLOGY 4 billion years ago ... hence, Biology can not have answers to universal truths that predate itself ... heck, there was NO EARTH 4 billion years ago ...

10 billion years ago there was NO CHEMISTRY either ... hence, physics is the 0nly way to understand the natural universe ...

- Physics as it stands today has yet to demonstrate that 10b years ago it could have predicted the eventual rise of biological life, and the courses biological life have taken.

- It is the *process* of science that (in)validates predictions and claims.

The Quantum Physicist on his own is in no position to explain the evidence to the Christian fundamentalist (or for that matter secular but equally dogmatic Noam Chomsky with his 'universal grammar organ' who also excessively leans towards a sense of unique human capabilities and potential) why language is not unique to humans. The primatologist, other behavioural biologist, the neurobiologist, etc are in a better position to do that.
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

Johann wrote: Physics as it stands today has yet to demonstrate that 10b years ago it could have predicted the eventual rise of biological life, and the courses biological life have taken.
neither could any other branch of science ... when biology does get to the point where it can explain anything based on fundamental natural principles, those principles will come from physics ...

let me put it another way ... a trained physicist can understand biology without any problem ... the reverse is not true ...
The Quantum Physicist on his own is in no position to explain the evidence to the Christian fundamentalist (or for that matter secular but equally dogmatic Noam Chomsky with his 'universal grammar organ' who also excessively leans towards a sense of unique human capabilities and potential) why language is not unique to humans. The primatologist, other behavioural biologist, the neurobiologist, etc are in a better position to do that.
sure, a physicist can not do an uncountable infinity of other things as well ... no one has claimed that ...

the point is that *no one* else can do what a physicist does ... and the business of understanding nature needs such investigation ...

I am not at all surprised at how quickly protein dynamics has taken off once physicists got into the act ... research in cellular automata are also being driven by physicists ...

I am not sure what it is that you want me to acknowledge ... if you want me to say that other sciences are important also, sure ... basketball is also important ... so is cricket ... what's the issue here?
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

The Quantum Physicist on his own is in no position to explain the evidence to the Christian fundamentalist (or for that matter secular but equally dogmatic Noam Chomsky with his 'universal grammar organ' who also excessively leans towards a sense of unique human capabilities and potential) why language is not unique to humans. The primatologist, other behavioural biologist, the neurobiologist, etc are in a better position to do that.
sure, a physicist can not do an uncountable infinity of other things as well ... no one has claimed that ...

I am not sure what it is that you want me to acknowledge ... if you want me to say that other sciences are important also, sure ... basketball is also important ... so is cricket ... what's the issue here?
Cricket might help you bridge your differences with a religious fundamentalist - but Sachin Tendulkar wont do you any good when it comes to countering religious nonsense about the origin and nature of biological life, etc than say Richard Dawkins or Jane Goodall.

Physics is a fundamental science like mathematics, but that doesnt mean that's it is the only or even the most effective branch of science when it comes to shifting people towards a more scientific point of view.

Humans are by nature human-centric in their questions.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Post by Aditya_V »

S. Valkan wrote
Aditya Vikrams wrote:

I Don't think its my misconception, I was talking of Parikshit meeting Kali as in the personification of Kali yuga.


Sorry, that's your utter misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_%28Demon%29

The pronuciation in the case of Parikshit's Kali( कलि ) demon personifying the "age" of Kaliyuga is different from the pronunciation of KALI (काली), the Shakti.

Either you didn't read the text properly, or are loathe to admit it.

There is no "agree to disagree" business here.
Valkan I guess this agree to disagree is best.

Anyways in the Wikipedia link that you just posted it is stated


Bhagavata Purana

Main article: Bhagavata Purana

..........

When Parikshit raised his sword to kill Kali, the black sudra stripped himself of his royal garments and prostrated himself at the emperor’s feet. The emperor knew Kali tainted the world with his evil and so had no place in it and raised his sword once more. But Kali interceded again and begged the emperor to spare his life and allow him a place to live within his empire. Parikshit decided that Kali would live in “gambling houses, in taverns, in women of unchaste lives, in slaughtering places and in goldâ€
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

Johann wrote:Physics is a fundamental science like mathematics, but that doesnt mean that's it is the only or even the most effective branch of science when it comes to shifting people towards a more scientific point of view.
let's worry about dissemination when we cross that bridge ... the problem right now is of finding the answers ...

once discovered, Brittney Spears could do the advertising for all I care ...

in the meantime, stay tuned ... the next level of understanding may be around the corner ... or, we may all die none the wiser ...
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

[quote="Aditya Vikrams"] Parikshit decided that Kali would live in “gambling houses, in taverns, in women of unchaste lives, in slaughtering places and in goldâ€
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Post by Aditya_V »

I don't think I referred to Godess KAALI in my previous posts, I was referring to Kali. Whether eating meat is accepted and Slaughtering for commercial consumption is not- that is your interpretation and I am sure you have basis for that.

Whereas I follow what the vaishnava gurus tell me and that is that meat eating is equal to taking part in the Slaughter. This the Vaishnava belief and I don't expect you to accept it- I would prefer if we could leave this aurgument at this point and I respect your point of view
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

Alok_N wrote:
Johann wrote:Physics is a fundamental science like mathematics, but that doesnt mean that's it is the only or even the most effective branch of science when it comes to shifting people towards a more scientific point of view.
let's worry about dissemination when we cross that bridge ... the problem right now is of finding the answers ...

once discovered, Brittney Spears could do the advertising for all I care ...

in the meantime, stay tuned ... the next level of understanding may be around the corner ... or, we may all die none the wiser ...
Alok,

This is probably the key difference in our viewpoints.

Science drew me from childhood because it seemed to have the answers - and my hope was that the answers could make human society better for all.

My mentor was a remarkable Indian woman who studied physics at Cambridge in an era when that was unusual. She later became a meteorologist because she had difficulty securing access to the kind of research she was most interested in, but she kept up with her core interests.

What I came to realise was that science decoupled from the reality of the way human beings think and interact is to decouple science from society - and in those situations it is science that suffers first.

The matrix for science, which is conducted by humans, is human society - not just that maya out there.

The legend of Achimedes'death is to me a warning of that human reality, which can defeat 'pure science'. It is no consolation to me that the threads might be picked up two millenia later.

She was disappointed by my change in directions, and our discussion (minus the attempts at what I called militancy) are direct echoes of our discussions as she tried to change our mind. Unfortunately she was much older than me, and a stroke and Parkinson's ended that conversation.

On the other hand, perhaps our points of view are not that different, or what are we both doing here at this sort of forum talking about this stuff?
Last edited by Johann on 03 Apr 2007 02:29, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

As Shiv pointed out, if we were to personally kill animals, we would be more circumspect.
When I first came to US, I met someone who justified his non-veg eating as the meat came from the grocery store in neatly wrapped packages and it is shorn of its slaughter house association. So it was not jiva himsa per se but just cooking some packaged eatable. :roll:
krangarajan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 17:06

Post by krangarajan »

S.Valkan wrote:
Many Vaishnavas make the common mistake of equating Kali with KAALI because "Aja" or goats are sacrificed at KAAli temples, and proclaim that there CANNOT be Bhakti if you worship BhadraKAALI as Shakti.

Bhagavatam makes a CLEAR distinction, referring to Kalim for the Yuga-Purusha and BhadraKAAli for Shakti.

I hope you understand the difference.
I have never heard any of my acharyas making this mistake; this theory is certainly new to me. As far as I have been told, vegetarianism is more about maintaining a saatvik mindset. Meat confers rajas, in a sort of "you are what you eat" manner. At least that was my understanding.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Aditya Vikrams wrote:This the Vaishnava belief and I don't expect you to accept it
Since I very succinctly understand what the Vaishnava fundamentals are, I have no qualms with your belief at all. :)
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

krangarajan wrote:As far as I have been told, vegetarianism is more about maintaining a saatvik mindset. Meat confers rajas, in a sort of "you are what you eat" manner. At least that was my understanding.
You are absolutely correct.

That was the basic outline of the my first post on this topic.

But those who claim that you cannot have Bhakti if you eat meat are basically making the path difficult for those with basic nature rooted in Rajas and Tamas.

After all, even they should be able to come to the high ground!

Or, is it that Bhakti too is elitist like "Jnana" ? :)
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

krangarajan wrote: I have never heard any of my acharyas making this mistake; this theory is certainly new to me. As far as I have been told, vegetarianism is more about maintaining a saatvik mindset. Meat confers rajas, in a sort of "you are what you eat" manner. At least that was my understanding.
I have been told the same. But, somehow the answer has never convinced me. By extension of that logic, no meat eater has realized "Brahman". This would also mean, there are very few "realized" individuals outside of India, assuming a majority of the world population outside of India consume meat in much higher proportions. Would love to get some gyan on this issue.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

ramana wrote: When I first came to US, I met someone who justified his non-veg eating as the meat came from the grocery store in neatly wrapped packages and it is shorn of its slaughter house association. So it was not jiva himsa per se but just cooking some packaged eatable. :roll:
When teenagers are shown what their burger patties really are, and how they are made from scratch, many become vegetarians in a jiffy.

That's the problem with "sanitised" food,- you are disconnected from the reality.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

S.Valkan wrote:The only way out is a cyclic model ( as in most Indic religions ), with the Potential Energy of the Absolute Vacuum acting as a probabilistic agent for the spontaneous break in symmetry leading to the "origin" pattern.
In any cyclical model, the causal event would have to generate an event to go back to zero (an hypothetical zero point (big bang point))., or is that driven by external force (unlikely, since we are talking about the "whole", picture). hence, even cyclical model can be represented as linear model. lets say, at 00:00.0000 hours, we begin a big-bang-day, and we need the 23:59.0999 'th event to bring it to a big bang morning for a next day, within the scope of 24 hour cyclical period. simillary, i expect big bang to big bang, there should be causal events, and the "whole" gamut of things gets "dark-matter-ed" into the next cycle.

sope, even in a cyclic model, one can't get an absolute origin pattern. hence, it has to be an assumption for any origin point.

something of the whole, i still don't understand.. !?
Last edited by SaiK on 03 Apr 2007 02:57, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

S.Valkan wrote:
ramana wrote: When I first came to US, I met someone who justified his non-veg eating as the meat came from the grocery store in neatly wrapped packages and it is shorn of its slaughter house association. So it was not jiva himsa per se but just cooking some packaged eatable. :roll:
When teenagers are shown what their burger patties really are, and how they are made from scratch, many become vegetarians in a jiffy.

That's the problem with "sanitised" food,- you are disconnected from the reality.
One of my colleague became a vegetarian after she read about the meat industry.

http://www.meat.org/
Last edited by svinayak on 03 Apr 2007 03:02, edited 1 time in total.
krangarajan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 17:06

Post by krangarajan »

ShauryaT wrote:
krangarajan wrote: I have never heard any of my acharyas making this mistake; this theory is certainly new to me. As far as I have been told, vegetarianism is more about maintaining a saatvik mindset. Meat confers rajas, in a sort of "you are what you eat" manner. At least that was my understanding.
I have been told the same. But, somehow the answer has never convinced me. By extension of that logic, no meat eater has realized "Brahman". This would also mean, there are very few "realized" individuals outside of India, assuming a majority of the world population outside of India consume meat in much higher proportions. Would love to get some gyan on this issue.
Well, I don't think the point is that eating meat precludes one from "realization," rather, in these times, we need as much of a leg up as we can get, and vegetarianism gives us such an advantage.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Valkan,

Aditya didn't mean goddess Kaali when he used the word "kali". It is clear from reading his posts.

-------------------------------------
P.S. STOP THE OPPRESSION OF GENTLE VEGETARIANS BY MILITANT MEAT-EATERS!! :) :)

---Fellowship of the Few (a distinct minority)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

krangarajan wrote:Well, I don't think the point is that eating meat precludes one from "realization," rather, in these times, we need as much of a leg up as we can get, and vegetarianism gives us such an advantage.
If Satvic gunas are essential for "Brahman" and Satvic gunas are not possible for meat eaters then by extension....

So, which of these above understanding is wrong?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

karmic value of eating vegetarian food or the act of ceasing a life that bleeds to death, cries of pain, feels for the death (un-natural). of course, the argument would be what about carnivors? lions and other wild animals that hunts and kills.. have a higher negative index than cows., that are total vegetarians. many monkeys are non-vegetarians, hence takes a lower positive value.

the higher the positive karmic index a living thing carries, better is for the nature. somethings may not look natural.. in the sense, the lions would have to die, if they don't hunt. hence, it would be natural for the lions to kill.. and in the animal kingdom, there has been strict rules regarding killing.

coming to humans, they go outright killing.. with no naturalism. its all done by capitalistic setup, whose sole purpose is to make money, asking people to eat beef and pig, and what not.

now, how about banning animal eating, and eating flesh is as good as taking steroids for sports, and thus vegetarians get equal competitive "gunas"?.. its the vegetarians are the oppressed kind in trying to compete with meat eaters.

i think this is all about killing. plants need not be killed to eat their products. animal dairy products need not go for a kill of the animal.. of course, we can't go into elementary or fundamental particle discussion like budhists do, and claim even each cellular organism is living, hence can't kill. unless, it comes in visual range(including the information available about meet industries), or human eye range(sensitivity, not distance), things can be considered vegetarianism (ahimsa index).

ahimsa index is what we need to keep adhearing to.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

S.Valkan wrote:
ramana wrote: When I first came to US, I met someone who justified his non-veg eating as the meat came from the grocery store in neatly wrapped packages and it is shorn of its slaughter house association. So it was not jiva himsa per se but just cooking some packaged eatable. :roll:
When teenagers are shown what their burger patties really are, and how they are made from scratch, many become vegetarians in a jiffy.

That's the problem with "sanitised" food,- you are disconnected from the reality.
There's a great deal of excessive and unnecessary cruelty built in to large-scale commercial cattle *and* poultry operations.

That cruelty comes from an industrial point of view that seeks to maximise meat production to keep costs low.

On the other hand I am a bipedal animal, and I dont particularly see myself as divorced from our hunter-gatherer past and the ecological niche that occupied, or see certain animals as divorced from their past niche in the ecosystem as prey animals.

Organic farms, and carefully controlled hunting do their best to give animals a decent quality of life before killing them. The downside is of course is higher price, but excessively cheap meat has worsened unhealthy eating. Excessive consumption (and the definition of excessive definitely depends on climate and physical activity) of any kind of meat is not only bad for our bodies, its bad for the environment and it leads to excessive cruelty.

In most societies whether in the West, SE Asia, NE Asia, India, wherever livestock (chickens, goats, cows, pigs, whatever) are raised for meat supply the golden rule is the same as any kind of execution.

You cant name the animal, and you certainly cant build up a personal relationship with it if you are to kill it in cold blood.

Even the Aztecs who practiced ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism against prisoners on a huge scale made sure they traded prisoners. No human being can have a relationship with something and kill it without hurting themselves.

Most people who keep dairy cows in the West or anywhere else become very close to their milkers, and are very reluctant to sell them to the meat market.

Traditional Indian rural culture with its emphasis on dairy isnt *that* different, except in that it religiously elevates the cow above all other non-human animals.

Western cultures have done the same thing with the dog, for the same reason. Animals you *work* with and develop a personal relationship are hard to kill let alone eat. Eating horseflesh was always a sign of real desperation, but easier since far fewer people had traditionally horses than dogs.

In a practical sense, its easier accept not having something you never had than to agree to give up something you do have.

If for example the ban on selling dogmeat was lifted, and became popular with 5-10% of the population, with a large remaining section avoiding it but not worked up about it, it would be difficult to find the political support to reimpose a ban.

My question is which sections of Indian and Hindu society still consider the cow a truly special animal, something they have special responsibilities towards?
Last edited by Johann on 03 Apr 2007 03:26, edited 2 times in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Johann wrote:So I suppose the real question is which sections of Indian and Hindu society believes the cow is a truly special animal, and that they have special responsibilities to cows?
I do and so do most mainstream Hindu communities. Cows in an agrarian society provide milk, the primary source of protein in a largely vegetarian society. Cow dung is used as a fertiliser. We use cows to transport goods and people. We use cows to irrigate our land. They are easily domesticated and eat food abundantly available.

More so, most Hindus worship the cow. The idea of killing this animal, which we worship and which provides so much, is for us is cruel and ungrateful.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

Shaurya, Sai,

There is traditional consensus, and then there is what that consensus means to people.

Its well known that cows have traditionally had a special place in all Hindu societies.

My question is really about which sections of Hindu society today feel strongly enough about cows that they are willing to put in the effort and rock the boat to the extent of banning the use of cattle for meat, or even banning the import of beef.

For example when (Mulayam or Laloo?)Yadav called for a major effort to import in to India cattle from Europe that were to be destroyed to stem the spread of mad cow disease - were there significant groups within Indian and Hindu society that agreed, yes, we do have a moral obligation to save these millions of lives, lets do something about it?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Johann wrote:For example when (Mulayam or Laloo?)Yadav called for a major effort to import in to India cattle from Europe that were to be destroyed to stem the spread of mad cow disease - were there significant groups within Indian and Hindu society that agreed, yes, we do have a moral obligation to save these millions of lives, lets do something about it?
The real India, does not have the luxury to think about, let alone, act on the miseries of Cows in far off lands, yet. However, There are many, many individuals and groups in India, who shelter the cow. Especially the abandoned cow. The VHP, an affiliate of the RSS propagates cow protection in India. So at a mass political level, it would be the RSS/affiliates. How much of a priority this issue gets in the scheme of things, is debatable.

Like all Hindutva issues, this issue too has limited appeal. On the issue of export, there have been some protests on the issue of illegal transport of Cows headed to slaughter houses in Bangladesh. Due to the nature of the government in the state of West Bengal and the significant portion of the Muslim population in the border districts, the protests have been muted.

Added:
At a practical level the way this is managed in India is that - most butchers and slaughter houses are run by Muslims in India. The overwhelming percentage of meat in India is Halal, although not always advertised as such. Hindus are kept out of the loop to a large degree.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 03 Apr 2007 04:27, edited 1 time in total.
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

Johann wrote:This is probably the key difference in our viewpoints.

Science drew me from childhood because it seemed to have the answers - and my hope was that the answers could make human society better for all.
this is probably true of a large number of scientists ... I see it today in a lot of young minds (19-25 years old) and I try to disabuse them of such notions ... I was also of this view when I entered science and was disappointed, nay, shocked, when it finally dawned on me that science increased the number of questions I could ask rather than answer the questions I already had ...
What I came to realise was that science decoupled from the reality of the way human beings think and interact is to decouple science from society - and in those situations it is science that suffers first.
well, yes, this is where we differ ... for me this is the most attractive part ... science provides symmetry that is a much needed respite from the chaos of humanity ...

Imangine Nitzche (sp?) doing science ... that is my model ...

Einstein said, "I retreat into my world of physics to find peace" ... he used to row his boat to the middle of the lake and sit there contemplating just to get away from his SHQ ... :)
On the other hand, perhaps our points of view are not that different, or what are we both doing here at this sort of forum talking about this stuff?
I come to BRF to reconnect to society ... it is much more rewarding than the corner tavern ... (plus, one has the advantage of turning off that 'puter at a moment's notice) ...

Johann, I don't mean disrespect when I type those "militant" posts ... it is only intended to shock one out of a groove ... I know it works for me when I am on the receiving end because it makes me pause and wonder why the other one is so worked up ...

in any case, there is another answer to the theme of "helping society" thorugh science ... one can do the two things simultaneously ... one can work on several projects in parallel and make sure that at least one of them is relevant to society of today (as opposed to 100 years down the line) ... I have such a project that I can not mention because it involves the acronym soup ...

finally, I will repeat what I had posted earlier in some thread ...

King of England: "Professor Maxwell, this 'electricity' of yours is very interesting and amusing. But what possible use could it have for society" ...
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

For Mohandas Gandhi, cow protection was an important aspect of Indian independence from British colonial rule, figuring in the return to traditional values. He wrote:

The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection. Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomenon [sic] in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire subhuman world. Man through the cow is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives....Protection of the cow means the protection of the whole dumb creation of God....Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live as long as there are Hindus to protect the cow. Hindus will be judged not by their tilaks, not by the correct chanting of mantras, not by their pilgrimages, not by their most punctilious observance of caste rules but by their ability to protect the cow ( Gandhi 1954).

Now under the pressures of trade liberalization and an emerging global market economy that is being pushed by the World Trade Organization, efforts to modernize livestock slaughter are being renewed; and opposition intensifies.

More animal fat and protein for the rich means less bread or grains for the poor. A major goal should be to reduce the overall livestock population to facilitate ecological restoration.

The Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of 1955, which allows the slaughter of cattle that are diseased, disabled, or more than 15 years old, allegedly resulted in young, nonproductive cows having their legs hacked and broken so they could be legally slaughtered.


One member of the opposing Congress party rose to object, saying such a policy contravened India's secular constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all religions.

The toxic chemicals that most of India's tanneries continue to discharge into rivers and watersheds cause serious ecological and human health problems. While some 200 million people are malnourished in India, ..
http://tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id47.html
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

[quote]Love your enemy
By Augustine D’Souza
There is too much violence and injustice in this world which cannot be countered — except by more love and more goodness which come from God; and which starts from that small and decisive “worldâ€
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Dont know whether its appropriate for this thread. Shiv delete if inappropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbXyegy5 ... ed&search=
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

I have been about the issue of dharma, religion and inalienable individual rights, and I believe I have been able to narrow my concerns down to a single issue.

Whenever we discuss Dharma we are told about inherent tolerance to a variety of belief systems, implying that this tolerance should be a sufficient guarantor of individual rights.

When we have a variety of belief systems that are accepted, without a central authority, it is not clear which belief system will dominate on a given day.

(In the case of the beef discussion, one aspect of the belief system says that slaughtering beef is opposed to the beliefs and sensitivities of the Hindu; and there is another school that says that there is no religious injunction against slaughtering cows; and yet a third that say ... ; and so on.) One might imagine that there are similar variety of beliefs in the context of just about any political issue we may encounter (labor laws, gay marriage, abortion, environmental pollution, dowry, inheritance, reservation, land reform, etc)

This lack of clarity can be troubling, particularly in the context of the power of the state, as well as in the context of the weakness of the state in protecting its citizenry from criminal activity and intent.

The path forward can be based on
(a) "faith" that dharma will do right by the individual;
(b) determination of basic (and perhaps even limited) "red-lines" that will never be crossed (my favorite ones are - right to sustain one's own life; right to one's life work - i.e., property; and right to liberty)
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

[quote="SaiK"]
By Augustine D’Souza


The Hebrews were taught “an eye for a eye; a tooth for a toothâ€
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Calvin wrote:I have been about the issue of dharma, religion and inalienable individual rights, and I believe I have been able to narrow my concerns down to a single issue.


The path forward can be based on
(a) "faith" that dharma will do right by the individual;
(b) determination of basic (and perhaps even limited) "red-lines" that will never be crossed (my favorite ones are - right to sustain one's own life; right to one's life work - i.e., property; and right to liberty)
a) is a gamble, and warm and fuzzy...in the minds of few.... with their own interpretation.
b) is reality.. The only known and common denominator...in the realm of publc civic and social contract among human beings.

An individuals right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Manny
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Vishy_mulay wrote:Dont know whether its appropriate for this thread. Shiv delete if inappropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbXyegy5 ... ed&search=
Pamela uses the term "Halal!'. That says it all.. its not the Hindus who are slaughtering the cow.

Manny
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Calvin wrote:The path forward can be based on
(a) "faith" that dharma will do right by the individual;
(b) determination of basic (and perhaps even limited) "red-lines" that will never be crossed (my favorite ones are - right to sustain one's own life; right to one's life work - i.e., property; and right to liberty)
Dharma, by definition includes doing the right thing for the individual, society and indeed for all kind, not just man kind. Dharma cannot cede primacy to the rights of the individual over others at all times.

I do not think anyone on the forum has suggested that Dharma replaces the consitution, individual rights or laws of the state. The argument is for:

- Laws to be under Dharma
- The alien and undefined concept of secularism to be thrown out from the preamble of the consititution
- For the state, to embrace the culture and ways of the land
- To not let alien concepts of religion dominate the political structure of the state
Last edited by ShauryaT on 03 Apr 2007 07:45, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Manny wrote:
Vishy_mulay wrote:Dont know whether its appropriate for this thread. Shiv delete if inappropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbXyegy5 ... ed&search=
Pamela uses the term "Halal!'. That says it all.. its not the Hindus who are slaughtering the cow.

Manny
No need to go on the defensive.

Our secularism tells us that we will absorb the excesses committed by our brothers of other faiths, and that we will also apologize for our own behavior to our brothers of other faiths.

Ultimately - that video is about India and even if Muslims are ill treating cattle that way, it is "tolerated" by the tolerant Hindu.

Hindus, as the majority community have to become intolerant of a whole lot of things. But tolerance is an end in itself.

Hindus pass a law the cows must not be slaughtered, and then that law is not enforced.

The reason for not enforcing the law is inexusable. You cannot have a law and not enforce it. It is your duty to enforce the law. But I just wonder if the Hindu ethos makes everything flexible.

I suspect that the concept of an inviolable law exists in the Quran and was also followed by the Church.

Do Hindus have inviolable laws? If Hindus do not have inviolable laws, is it any wonder that a nation like India passes laws that are kept in abeyance for eternity. Is there a connetion do you think?

If there is a law banning cow slaughter, the person who breaks the law needs to be brought to book an punished. I expect the punishment may not be great - but whatever it is, it must be enforced.

Is it being enforced? Or is the punishment so light that it is laughable?

if it is not being enforced whose responsibility is it?
is there an undercurrent of Hindu thought that says "Although there is a law that bans cow slaughter, Hindus must be tolerant and not enforce it strictly so that people can get their beef"

Or is it a rationalization for ineffiency, corruption and a quid pro quo for other laws to be enforced lightly. Are cows allowed on roads? What does the letter of the law have to say about anything that obstructs the free flow of traffic. Are we being "tolerant" of the urban cow owner who allows his cattle to roam the streets.

Do you live in india?

Are you a concerned citizen?

is cow slaughter banned in your state?

Have you seen beef for sale?

Wtf have YOU, dear concerned citizen, done about it?

if you are really concerned, how do you see the issue of cows sitting in the middle of roads in the city?

We are incensed by emotion, but are paralysed by tolerance.

Saying that there is a law and order problem is not enough. There is a Hindu ethos that is followed by the Idol Worshipping Hindus, the Muslims and the Christians of India in which they all cooperate to ensure that all the contradictions we see are perpetuated.

Muslims may not say it aloud - but frankly I know Christians who openly say they are "Hindu".

Whether the idol worshipping Hindu accepts him or not is a different matter. The Christian who calls himself Hindu readily dismisses the IWH who does not accept him and says "You think you are a real Hindu - but you have rejected so many people- look at the Dalits. So rejection by you is meaningless.

When we punish the cow-slaughterer, we need to equally punish the cow owner who keeps live cattle on city roads.

Both subjects are likely to cause needless upheaval, so the police take no action, the politicians use each issue for their ends and we the DIE complain that the situation in India is so different from the situation in the US.
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Holy cash not Holy cow

Post by G Subramaniam »

In private life, Mulayam and Lalloo etc are very devout hindus
But to humor their muslim vote bank, they dont enforce cow slaughter laws
Much of the congress leadership goes to various swamis
Heck even Karunanidhis wife fell at the feet of the Saibaba last month
But, to get muslim votes, you have to humor them,
Not enforcing cow slaughter laws is what makes muslims happy

The late Ali Mian asked Indian muslims to kill cows, because it was sacred to hindus

In Kolkata, next to the main CPM building , cow slaughter happens openly on the roads
In West Bengal, the Sachar commission found the most deprivation among muslims. For the CPM the attitude is , throw the muslims a bone by allowing cow slaughter and let them rot in their ghettos


Next, Hindu policemen get bribes and dont enforce anti-cow slaughter laws
If the cops enforce the laws, the muslims riot and the secular politician gets the cops transferred

In Gujurat, South Kanara, etc, the Bajrang Dal is enforcing anti-cow slaughter laws using islamic methods with a fair amount of success

Next, hindus have a strong hand in cow slaughter
More than meat, it is leather which is more profitable

I once went to a leather website, and about 80% of the leading leather merchants were hindus

Agreed, it is the muslim butcher who kills the cow
but who sells the cow to the muslim, none other than hindus from
farmers to brahmin priests ( Yes, brahmin priests, sabrang had an article about a brahmin priest who was selling cows to muslim butchers, getting assaulted by Bajrang Dal )

To be honest, most hindus dont give a hoot about cow slaughter
UNLESS it is done blatantly openly
If it is done discreetly in muslim ghettos, it is dont ask - dont tell

Unfortunately, many muslims deliberately do cow slaughter openly in hindu locales and this sets off a riot
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Madras Institute of Tech, founded on cow slaughter

Post by G Subramaniam »

http://www.mitindia.edu/about.htm


The Story of My Life
Shri Chinnaswami Rajam (1882-1955)
Founder - MIT, India

In 1908, I was a volunteer in the Congress, under Sri V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, as I was hard up for funds at that time. I had to join as a volunteer for food. ....

I went back to Kumbakonam, and from there wrote to the Mysore Tanneries that I would take up the job on commission basis...

At that time, the Mysore Tanneries were badly in need of funds. They had no money to buy raw skins. I booked orders, with advances, while the hides were still on the backs of the living animals! The advance money received by me was used for purchasing hides and skins. In order to help the Mysore Tanneries, I took up the management of the Berhampur Leather Manufacturing Company, Bengal, which was started by the Maharaja of Kasim Bazaar.
Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Post by Karan Dixit »

Shiv,

I have been asked many a times, why there are so many riots in India. Your post provides a very graphical answer to that question.

Religious riots and all riots in India have been religious riots are direct result of Government of India’s attitude towards law and order.

If GOI decides to enforce the cow slaughter law then the so called hardliner Hindus will not have to take it upon themselves to cause a riot on cow slaughter issue.
Locked