Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Actually it is very practical for societies to eat less meat and adopt more green into their diets.

The amount of grain it would require to directly feed humans would be a fraction of the grain required to feed a bull or poultry animal and then slaughter that animal and feed humans.

Vegetarianism is a very sensible and common sense approach for people in modern societies to consider. And yes, a meat free diet is perfectly healthy - hippies in the sixties proved biologists wrong by showing that it is possible to live a healthy life without meat consumption as before scientists believed meat was needed to supply the body with essential amino acids. It turns out, all of our nutrition can come from plants.

desertdudeshj wrote:Killing is a sin, right ? Then what do we eat ? Because plants and trees are also living creatures and we are effectively killing them to eat them aswell.

So should we all just die of hunger ? Or eat dead foilage.

Also another point, according to you it should be perfectly fine to eat any animals that have died natuarally, right ? Since we haven't killed them for food.

I mean all this sounds very nice fluffy, green, veggie and eco friendly but isn't at all practical. Also what are your thoughts on consuming eggs, milk, cheese etc etc

Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain. The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita).

They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee or one lakh rupees from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:54 am --

event horizon wrote:Actually it is very practical for societies to eat less meat and adopt more green into their diets.

The amount of grain it would require to directly feed humans would be a fraction of the grain required to feed a bull or poultry animal and then slaughter that animal and feed humans.

Vegetarianism is a very sensible and common sense approach for people in modern societies to consider. And yes, a meat free diet is perfectly healthy - hippies in the sixties proved biologists wrong by showing that it is possible to live a healthy life without meat consumption as before scientists believed meat was needed to supply the body with essential amino acids. It turns out, all of our nutrition can come from plants.

You are right...

It is possible to go without s.ex and remain celibate for one's whole life - it is also possible to survive on just one meal a day (and indeed, there are biological arguments that both these extreme activities can have positive health benefits). On the spiritual side, reducing food intake and remaining celibate for the period of meditation/contemplation, does have positive effects and concentrates the mind.

HOWEVER, God/Nature/Evolution designed human beings to eat meat. The natural desire to eat meat also has positive benefits - protein and nutrients in meat are beneficial to man. Most things taken to excess are bad - water is a poison if too much is drunk, for example. Meat therefore should be judged on its merits, not when taken to excess.

So, whilst it is possible to live a vegetarian lifestyle and cut out meat completely - it still remains a choice that needs to be explained.

Invoking scripture to advocate vegetarianism raises the questions I've posed above which still remain unanswered:

Why does early Hindu scripture say that eating beef is not only ok, but is recommended?

When and who finally banned the eating of meat in general and beef in particular? What changed in the periods when Brahmins were eating beef and when they stopped?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
HOWEVER, God/Nature/Evolution designed human beings to eat meat. The natural desire to eat meat also has positive benefits - protein and nutrients in meat are beneficial to man. Most things taken to excess are bad - water is a poison if too much is drunk, for example. Meat therefore should be judged on its merits, not when taken to excess.

That is your version, if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

All the punishments are only for reformation of the soul and not for revenge. The hell is created by God not with vengeance against sinners but due to kindness to reform the souls. God is always kind to reform the souls, which are His children since the souls are created by Him.

The father will never have even a trace of vengeance towards his issues. Jesus always addressed God as father and He propagated this concept by saying that all your sins will be excused by God if you are reformed. Practical knowledge, the practical realization, which is the reformation, will cancel all your previous bad deeds or sins as told in Gita (Jnanaagnih….). Except this one way, there is no other way to cancel the sins and escape from all the present problems in the world and future torture in the hell.

I'd like to ask then what you'd expect people like Eskimos to eat? When they live in a place where virtually nothing vegetable like grows? Their diet is pretty much 99% meat! But they do however, use virtually the entire animal, skins for clothing and bettin, bones for other things etc etc.

Also your comment that crops are harvested after the plant has died is completely incorrect - clearly you've never ever been anywhere near a farm!

Please stop talking such utter rubbish!

Datta - you haven't addressed the fact that Hindu scripture talks of animal sacrifices (along the lines of Judaism and Islam) - where the flesh is eaten. Indeed, Brahmins are recorded to have recommended beef for certain ailments.

Just repeating your current belief that 'it is a sin' etc is not shedding any light.

And not addressing the scriptural references I gave and not addressing the simple question: when did Hindu priests actually stop eating beef and advocate vegetarianism shows you in a bad light.

Logic is failing you, biology is failing you and you haven't produced any reply to the scriptural references produced.

Also, as Chocs pointed out, plant material is very much alive. Yeast in bread (for example) or yoghurt cultures are live cultures which die in the process of making the food, and many are killed in our systems when we eat.

Cheers,
Shafique

As much as I know (my friend talks abt it), the reason for being vegetarian is not only abt preventing the killing of the alive creatures, but also it is to prevent them from suffering the pain. In their scriptures Cow would suffer the most pain when dying and that s why it is worst to kill, but birds suffer less pain and after birds come sea species! So killing bacterias in milk is really not an issue here!

^That is logical Mel.

However, note that Datta said specifically:

dattaswami wrote:.., if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

But I do agree with datta on the point that any argument should be able 'withstand powerful logic and analysis' - hence why I'd expect him to welcome the requests to explain why historical records show that Hindus not only ate beef, but Brahmins (priestly class) recommended it for certain ailments.

At some time, the teachings changed - it appears.

I'm asking for the 'powerful logic and analysis' that can explain this.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:^That is logical Mel.

However, note that Datta said specifically:

dattaswami wrote:.., if any argument should be accepted as truth, it should withstand powerful logic and analysis. When you kill any living being, you are a sinner. Never kill any living being for food. When you kill, you are a sinner and is a killer. There is no excuse for killing living beings. You become a criminal in the eyes of Allah.

But I do agree with datta on the point that any argument should be able 'withstand powerful logic and analysis' - hence why I'd expect him to welcome the requests to explain why historical records show that Hindus not only ate beef, but Brahmins (priestly class) recommended it for certain ailments.

At some time, the teachings changed - it appears.

I'm asking for the 'powerful logic and analysis' that can explain this.

Cheers,
Shafique

If any body recommended eating meat, ceratiainly he will be punished also those who followed him also punished. There were people who also abstined from eating meat, if you say some also eat. Therefore there were people who did not kill the animlas for flesh, and as per you, some people killed for eating, even though they are Hindus. Those who killed for eating will be punished by God.

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:42 pm --

shafique wrote:DYeast in bread (for example) or yoghurt cultures are live cultures which die in the process of making the food, and many are killed in our systems when we eat.

Cheers,
Shafique

I will give an example..
Plucking leaves and fruits is not killing. The crops are cut only when they die after loosing the sign of the life, which is the Green Chlorophyll. In plants life exists but mind and intelligence do not exist.

Life is called as Pranamaya Kosa. Mind is Manomaya Kosa. Intelligence is Vijnanamaya Kosa. The life is only inert mechanism of exchange process of Oxygen and Carbondioxide and release of energy by oxidation. This mechanism has no awareness of the pain.

The mind is represented by the nervous system, which is not present in the plants. The mind may be in very very primitive stage in plants as per the research of Mr. Bose. The ancient Indian sages avoided even plucking the leaves and fruits. They ate leaves and fruits when they have fallen from the plants (Swayam Viseerna Dhruva Patra Vruttita).

They avoided this trace of sin also. In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal, but there is a lot of quantitative difference. One percent sin and hundred percent sin cannot be equated. Your argument concludes that if one does one percent sin, why not hundred percent sin be done? This equates to your statement that if one plucks a leaf why not we kill an animal. Are you pained equally if I steal one rupee (1$)or one lakh rupees(1M$) from your pocket. The trace of sin can always be neglected. The Lord came as Bhuddha and preached this non-voilence. Veda also says that one should kill his animal nature in the sacrifice and not the animal (Manyuh Pasuh).

Datta - with respect, you are still avoiding the simple question:

When and who changed the instructions found in Hindu Scriptures in regards eating beef?

You seem to be saying that the earlier scriptures are wrong when they say eating beef is ok, and recommended.

I understood that a lettuce leaf is still 'alive' when eaten. I also understand that bacteria are killed in fermentation processes that make bread and yoghurt - i.e. living organisms are killed for food.

Cheers,
Shafique

dattaswami wrote:In plucking the leaf and killing an animal, the sin is qualitatively equal

So once again both are a sin, what do we do just die of starvation. What about nature if the circle of life and if killing for food was such a big sin and was meant to carry out in a vegetarian way why would there be carnivores in nature, there are also carnivourous plants circa the venus flytrap.

Killing a plant or breaking one of its limbs ( plucking fruits or leaves ) is a sin but a sin your willing to live with ? Or its ok to kill them because they feel no pain or no consciousness, self aware if you may.

So according to your logic killing a baby is less of a sin/crime then killing a fully grown self aware man. Because although babies can feel pain but they are not self aware. Almost similar to a plant.

Also do you then agree with the Jain perspective of not eating any fruits or vegtables that grow underground like potatoes and carrots because they believe you are disturbing the and there are many tiny creatures ( Ants, worms etc etc ) that benefit from these plants and once uprooted they distrubed, displaced or even killed.

Also I am also very intrested in your scriptures which say its perfectly alright to eat meat a question you have been trying to dodge since the onset, also looking at nature why do humans have a teethset meant for both a veg and non veg diet if god wanted man to just be veg.

There is just way too much in your arguments with is totaly self condradictary.

desertdudeshj wrote:

dattaswami wrote:So according to your logic killing a baby is less of a sin/crime then killing a fully grown self aware man. Because although babies can feel pain but they are not self aware. Almost similar to a plant.

You know a child is going to be grown to a full grown man. The human life is very very important. In the human birth alone one can do service to God and practically please Him. A soul is the part of creation. Veda says that the world is created for the entertainment of God only. Therefore, every soul should realize that its existence and life are for the pleasure of God only and not for the pleasure of one’s own self or his family.

There fore killing human beings is not at all justified..

And what about all the rest ?

Or is thats the only point you had an answer for ?

shafique wrote:Datta - with respect, you are still avoiding the simple question:

When and who changed the instructions found in Hindu Scriptures in regards eating beef?

You seem to be saying that the earlier scriptures are wrong when they say eating beef is ok, and recommended.

I understood that a lettuce leaf is still 'alive' when eaten. I also understand that bacteria are killed in fermentation processes that make bread and yoghurt - i.e. living organisms are killed for food.

Cheers,
Shafique

Growth is not a characteristic of life. A crystal grows in a solution. Nail grows. Life and respiration is also there in a plant. You will say that we will give some injection to the animal so that it will not feel pain during killing. This you do it by force. If you do not give injection and kill, the animals can have full expression of life and lead an enjoying life; that you are opposing. The dormant nature of conciousness already exists by itself. Suppose you donot give injection; it can entertain and enjoy its life.

In the case of plant, God has already given the injection to it. It is an arrangement made by God. However, in case of killing animal, God has not made such arrangements. Eating non-vegetarian food is not at all a sin, because if you analyse, once it is killed it not a sin. It is killed beause you eat non-vegetarian food. Sin will come only for the killing. After it is killed, it becomes as good as an inert body. Eating flesh is not a sin. But, the animal is killed to eat the flesh. In Hindu religion, there is a set of people called as Bhairava religion. They eat dead bodies. Is it not a sin? No. They have not killed. It is not a sin because there no is killing involved. The dead body is as good as a chapatti. Eating flesh is not a sin. Killing the living being to eat flesh is the sin.

-- Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:So once again both are a sin, what do we do just die of starvation. What about nature if the circle of life and if killing for food was such a big sin and was meant to carry out in a vegetarian way why would there be carnivores in nature, there are also carnivourous plants circa the venus flytrap.
.

Consider the case of a tiger killing a deer. To kill an innocent beautiful deer is the greatest sin and the birth of the tiger itself is the result of the soul’s bad deeds in the past. Just like the color and the cotton thread cannot be separated the cruel nature of the soul in the tiger is inherent and inseparable. Therefore it looks for you as if it is a natural thing when it kills the deer. You cannot say that a carnivorous person who kills and eats the human beings is justified because you are affected.

You can understand the pain of the deer when you are born as a deer. The deer cannot argue like a human being. But because of that it should not have a different justice. One person may be unable to employ an advocate but the judge will do the justice. A tiger will be doing such sins continuously which will increase its cruelty. As the cruelty increases, the cruel deeds become more and more. The quality leads to action and the action again results in quality. This is the vicious circle in which the soul is caught, that is the end of the story and there is no liberation for such soul who is in the body of tiger.

datta, you said that any theory must be able to stand the test of logic. I agree with you on this point.

Thank you for clarifying that your belief is that EATING flesh is not a sin, but it is the act of killing the animal that is a sin.

However, I draw your attention to the Hindu scriptures quoted before - and particularly to the references which relate to KILLING a cow:

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
...

Can you reconcile these instructions with your current belief - and I ask once again, when and who changed these instructions to 'no killing'?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
...


Shafique

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
---------
In the above statement, as per your quotation, it simply says that, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

That means Rigveda as per your quoted verses, did not say that "one should slaughter oxen and cows on the occasion of a girl’s marriage".

Thanks for confirming that the Rigveda does say that when oxen and cows are slaughtered at a wedding. Can you clarify who does the slaughtering and who eats the meat?

Why are you not addressing all the other quotes:

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Thanks for confirming that the Rigveda does say that when oxen and cows are slaughtered at a wedding. Can you clarify who does the slaughtering and who eats the meat?

Why are you not addressing all the other quotes:

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

Cheers,
Shafique

The essence of my point is that, there can be people who habituated to killing for eating for a long time inspite of continous preaching by God not to do it. But it is in vain. If you ask a chain smoker to quit smoking, he cannot do it all on a sudden. Like wise people become habituated to eat meat after killing.

God came as Bhudha to tackle this problem and introduced the concept of Ahimsa to stop killing animals for eating. God is very kind and animals also part of His creation and killing will make animals to undergo tremendous agony and pain. When we are slightly cut in our leg or hand how much agony and pain we are undergoing. Then what to say of slitting the throat forcefully and killing? They also undergo tremendous pain, agony and suffering. People enjoy the meat in the dinning room, but the cruelty which resulted in that meat is very huge, and slowly should be curtailed and eliminated...

But we are not discussing the essence of your point which is now becoming more clearer that it is nothing more than just your own opinion which you are entitled to ofcourse but trying to guise it as some holy commandment is what is misleading, specially when clearly your own scripture as quoted above do not instill such prohibitions.

Unless ofcourse you can prove that these verse have been altered through the passage of time but ofcourse you clearly make the point that the veda is as you say it free from pollution. So either you have misunderstood the scripture or you are trying to pass of cultural rituals as scripture even though the scripture contradicts your stance on this, so according to you, now you yourself are trying to "pollute" teh veda by altering its teachings or finally the translations are wrong which until now you dodged that question when asked so I assuming they are not far from the meaning of the original text.

desertdudeshj wrote:

Unless ofcourse you can prove that these verse have been altered through the passage of time but ofcourse you clearly make the point that the veda is as you say it free from pollution. So either you have misunderstood the scripture or you are trying to pass of cultural rituals as scripture even though the scripture contradicts your stance on this, so according to you, now you yourself are trying to "pollute" teh veda by altering its teachings or finally the translations are wrong which until now you dodged that question when asked so I assuming they are not far from the meaning of the original text.

That means Rigveda as per that quoted verses, did not say that "one should slaughter oxen and cows on the occasion of a girl’s marriage".

By the way, the portion which was said by my friend from Veda do not say to kill and eat. “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
The same Lord came to different parts of the world in different age to preach the same Divine Knowledge. All the scriptures of the world are the records of the knowledge given by the same Lord and hence cannot contradict each other. Yet we find sometimes that there are some glaring contradictions between different scriptures of the world. This is in part due to fact that the Lord taught the same truth in different ages and places in a slightly different way, so as to suit the culture and language of the people. This is only an extraneous difference. The essential knowledge is the same. Correct interpretation will remove the contradiction.
Sometimes there may be an apparent difference even in the essential meaning.

In such as case the inconsistency is probably caused by corruption of the scripture over generations. Comparison with other scriptures of the world will help in removing the corrupted portions in each scripture. Here it becomes essential to bring in experience as a prama?a or a valid means of knowledge. While comparing contradictory views in different scriptures, the view which agrees with experience or anubhuti should be taken as correct.

So what is it saying then, just slaughter a few cows for the fun of it on the occasion. That sounds like even a bigger sin than atleast eating what you kill for food. If slauthering a few animals on a joyous occasion for public consumption if not then what, slaughter and throw them in the river or something. Can you see how much sense you are making

We are not comparing scriptures of the world we are comparing "your" devine scriptures i.e the Veda's and what you have been going on about what they say.

And so what are you saying now that the scripture is now corrupted after going on forever about how it is not ? The only condratiction I see here is what you are saying and what your scriptures are saying and nothing else.

And for the Nth time you car just addressing only one quotation and trying but not very succesfully to dodge the other excerpts from the veda's

desertdudeshj wrote:So what is it saying then, just slaughter a few cows for the fun of it on the occasion. That sounds like even a bigger sin than atleast eating what you kill for food. If slauthering a few animals on a joyous occasion for public consumption if not then what, slaughter and throw them in the river or something. Can you see how much sense you are making

We are not comparing scriptures of the world we are comparing "your" devine scriptures i.e the Veda's and what you have been going on about what they say.

And so what are you saying now that the scripture is now corrupted after going on forever about how it is not ? The only condratiction I see here is what you are saying and what your scriptures are saying and nothing else.

And for the Nth time you car just addressing only one quotation and trying but not very succesfully to dodge the other excerpts from the veda's

The portion which Mr. Shafique quoted, do not say that one should slaughter animals....

So basically you were just happy with flooding the forum with "spam" earlier but when it actually comes down to discussing and explaning what you post your no good at it.

I notice that he hasn't managed to reply to any of my queries, which only leads me to the conclusion that he has no argument for it under those circumstances - case closed I reckon.

So, whilst it is possible to live a vegetarian lifestyle and cut out meat completely - it still remains a choice that needs to be explained.

What a strange and profoundly dumb argument.

Why would someone's personal choice need explanation or approval from someone else?

Clearly I feel the same with the (unconvincing) arguments Muslims give for not eating pork. 'Because Allah told me so' is not very convincing. But I certainly could care less about it and leave their irrational beliefs to themselves.

^This is rich, coming from the man who is convinced the earth can stop rotating for a day because the Bible says so, and coyly refuses to answer whether he agrees with his fellow US Christians who believe in Rapture (when they will disappear in a puff of smoke)!!

However, it is a strawman.

God telling Muslims not to eat pork (as He instructed Jews also) is an instruction that is in the Quran and Bible, and hasn't been modified. The Vedas saying that it is ok to eat beef and then someone invoking the vedas to say we should be vegetarian is hardly the same.

Datta invoked the vedas and said that any theory must stand the test of logic. We took him at his word and quoted the Vedas back to him.

He failed.

That is probably why eh feels an affinity towards him?

Cheers,
Shafique