Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

[civfanatic]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

That's the beauty.. isn't it? Everyone can interpret their own way and yet nobody will claim others to be non-hindu because of non-adherence to their own version of interpretation. That is precisely how Hinduism is designed. Is medicine good or bad? Those who got cured by the medicine will say it's good and those who took it in a different proportion and got affected by it will say it's bad. If I say that the medicine can't be both good and bad at the same time, is it justified? It can be both good and bad as per their interpretation and usage and most importantly the time. As I said before, good and bad are subjective and belongs to the 'maya' category. Likewise, i wouldn't call it confusion per se. It's just designed that way to ensure lesser conflicts among people and ensure the survival of the human race despite the conflicting opinions. It would be naive of us if we think Hinduism can be constrained to a simple set of rules. Hinduism is not a 'religion by the book'. All you will see are the guidelines, not the rules.

Objective "good" and objective "bad" do not exist. All drugs have an objective, measurable, chemical impact on the body that may be perceived as either "good" or "bad" depending on the individual and his/her usage of the drug, but that is irrelevant.

What you are saying is that "Hinduism", as a modern religious grouping, has no real philosophical basis, since different "Hindus" can hold mutually exclusive, contradictory views (as on beef-eating, for example), and cannot agree on a simple definition of "Hinduism". The only thing connecting the various peoples called "Hindus" is geography, i.e. the fact that most of their belief systems originated from the Indian subcontinent. It would be like grouping together Norse paganism, Druidism, and Greco-Roman polytheism and calling it "Europeanism", or grouping together Zen Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese tribal religions and calling it "Sinicism". Is there are any underlying ideology or belief that unites all "Hindus"?

 

[aerokan]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Objective "good" and objective "bad" do not exist. All drugs have an objective, measurable, chemical impact on the body that may be perceived as either "good" or "bad" depending on the individual and his/her usage of the drug, but that is irrelevant.

Yes, the discussion became relevant when you used the words "Obviously, they cannot both be right; someone has to be wrong." I was only trying to show the similarity in the argument by using the example of medicine. That's the reason why i said, based on time, place and situation.. validity of beef eating varies.

What you are saying is that "Hinduism", as a modern religious grouping, has no real philosophical basis, since different "Hindus" can hold mutually exclusive, contradictory views (as on beef-eating, for example), and cannot agree on a simple definition of "Hinduism". The only thing connecting the various peoples called "Hindus" is geography, i.e. the fact that most of their belief systems originated from the Indian subcontinent. It would be like grouping together Norse paganism, Druidism, and Greco-Roman polytheism and calling it "Europeanism", or grouping together Zen Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese tribal religions and calling it "Sinicism".

You are only questioning about a few contradictory practices and views. I would ask you to step up and ask why even atheists can be considered Hindus. It's not the geography.. but the outlook a person which broadly categorizes the hindus. Instead of thinking that Hindus "cannot agree", if you start thinking that Hindus will agree to disagree, you will be able to start understanding the outlook of Hinduism. Also if you want a 'simple' definition of Hinduism or if you expect some distinctive boundaries of Hinduism, you would be in for a disappointment. Does the relgions you mentioned accept each others as part of the bigger collective? Just respecting other's right to existence doesn't count alone. Do they inherently expect the other religions to be part of the collective and yet decide to follow only a few? If yes.. the lines are already blurred and there is little reason why they shouldn't be termed as one.

The philosophical basis of Hinduism does exist. But not in terms of what most of us within our narrow confines of the probabilistic thinking would comprehend. Trying to explain Hinduism in it's core is like explaining the quantum physics to a classical physicist. Or like trying to experience 3D fully by watching 2D.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Why ?
Evolution has granted us the ability to eat animals. Cows can't digest meat, we can.

From environmental and ecological point of view, it is not energy efficient. The non-vegetarianism puts heavy pressure on vegetarian food sources.

There are many things you are capable of doing but you do not do. And that is because human beings also have the capability to make judgements about right and wrong. Materialistic evolution had also granted Europeans the capability to trade and kill Africans, but that has changed with time. The next evolutionary stage would be to treat animal life at par with humans. And this is something which is happening in the west, with people moving towards vegetarianism.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

So, what is your answer to the OP? Is it "no"?




Well, just as I predicted, there are Hindus here on this very thread who are claiming that Vedas are against beef-eating (and perhaps meat-eating altogether), while others are claiming the exact opposite. Obviously, they cannot both be right; someone has to be wrong.

From this episode, and others, it seems to me like many modern Hindus are quite confused about their own "religion".

You can eat meat and still be a corrupt Hindu!!

If you take Vedas to be the supreme authority on Hinduism then beef-eating is not considered a good virtue. May be the plagiarism introduced due to translation over the years has resulted in contradictions.

 

[Razor]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

From environmental and ecological point of view, it is not energy efficient. The non-vegetarianism puts heavy pressure on vegetarian food sources.

Can you explain further about this.

There are many things you are capable of doing but you do not do. And that is because human beings also have the capability to make judgements about right and wrong. Materialistic evolution had also granted Europeans the capability to trade and kill Africans, but that has changed with time. The next evolutionary stage would be to treat animal life at par with humans. And this is something which is happening in the west, with people moving towards vegetarianism.

Why should animal life be treated at par with human life ?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Can you explain further about this.

Convert the amount of energy spent in rearing a cow and killed for two meals to the amount of food which can be provided for same energy input.

Why should animal life be treated at par with human life ?

Why not?

One reason: Hindus and other dharmic religions believe in reincarnation. Given that we have many rituals for the well-being of our forefathers, it does not make sense to eat them and still believe in reincarnation.

 

[civfanatic]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Yes, the discussion became relevant when you used the words "Obviously, they cannot both be right; someone has to be wrong." I was only trying to show the similarity in the argument by using the example of medicine. That's the reason why i said, based on time, place and situation.. validity of beef eating varies.

The comparison with medicine is flawed, since you are trying to associate the truth or falsehood of a set of propositions with whether or not medicine is "good" or "bad". The former is objective, while the latter is subjective.

In this thread, the following claims were made, both opposites of each other and mutually exclusive:
Claim 1: The Vedas are NOT opposed to the eating of beef. (raised by @arnabmit)
Claim 2: The Vedas ARE opposed to the eating of beef. (raised by @Sakal Gharelu Ustad and @warriorextreme)

This is the classic case of a proposition and its direct negation, for which there are only three possibilities:
1) The original proposition is true
2) The original proposition is false, and its direct negation is true
3) The truth or falsehood of the proposition cannot be ascertained.

I am not concerned with exceptions, such as eating beef if one's survival depends on it (as raised by warriorextreme), because this does not change the fact that the Vedas are still opposed to the consumption of beef (as claimed by the same poster). Such cases of "leeway" do not affect the truth or falsehood of the original proposition or its negation. The implication that a Hindu should avoiding eating beef (unless absolutely necessary) is still there, while the original proposition rejects that implication.

In the case of the third possibility, my statement that "Hinduism" has no real philosophical basis would be supported, since the ambiguity of the validity of basic religious concepts in "Hinduism" shows the lack of any real guidelines for warranting a distinct religious grouping. One might wonder, given the apparent flexibility of "Hinduism" and the lack of any real organizing guidelines, why all of humanity cannot be described as "Hindu"?

You are only questioning about a few contradictory practices and views. I would ask you to step up and ask why even atheists can be considered Hindus.

The term "Hindu atheist" would be an oxymoron, unless one is using the term "Hindu" in the original meaning of the term, which was purely ethnic and geographic rather than religious.

It's not the geography.. but the outlook a person which broadly categorizes the hindus. Instead of thinking that Hindus "cannot agree", if you start thinking that Hindus will agree to disagree, you will be able to start understanding the outlook of Hinduism.

What exactly is that "outlook" which "broadly categorizes the hindus"? Be specific.

If all humans learn to agree to disagree, will the whole world become Hindus?

The philosophical basis of Hinduism does exist. But not in terms of what most of us within our narrow confines of the probabilistic thinking would comprehend. Trying to explain Hinduism in it's core is like explaining the quantum physics to a classical physicist. Or like trying to experience 3D fully by watching 2D.

The usual "it's too complicated for simpletons to comprehend" approach will not work here. I am waiting for the answer to my question.

 

[civfanatic]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

You can eat meat and still be a corrupt Hindu!!

If you take Vedas to be the supreme authority on Hinduism then beef-eating is not considered a good virtue. May be the plagiarism introduced due to translation over the years has resulted in contradictions.

Like a Muslim can eat pork, drink alcohol, gamble, and be a "corrupt Muslim"?

And like I asked warriorextreme, have you ever considered the possibility that the "plagiarism" and manipulation was the other way around? That modern interpretations of the Vedic corpus by organizations like Arya Samaj deliberately promoted a certain viewpoint and agenda that may have been alien to Indians of the distant past?

 

[puru]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Hinduism is a free religion. we make our own rules than ruled by anyone , anyone can question , edit , reform it ( like wikipedia ) .

 

[puru]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

i'm a vegetarian

 

[Singh]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

From environmental and ecological point of view, it is not energy efficient. The non-vegetarianism puts heavy pressure on vegetarian food sources.

Same argument can be made against dairy esp in India.

Its the burgeoning human population and demand that is putting pressure.

Ever since humans have existed we have had meat.

Without the ability to digest meat, the humans would've been extinct long back.

There are many things you are capable of doing but you do not do. And that is because human beings also have the capability to make judgements about right and wrong. Materialistic evolution had also granted Europeans the capability to trade and kill Africans, but that has changed with time. The next evolutionary stage would be to treat animal life at par with humans. And this is something which is happening in the west, with people moving towards vegetarianism.

I don't quite see how could you conflate an evolutionary and survival trait and religious morals ?

From my understanding, not eating or eating meat doesn't make you a better person. Hitler was a vegetarian. Tibetan Monks do partake of non-vegetarian foodstuffs.

The only argument that can work is vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier and more longevity producing. And if you want to reduce the consumption of meat (esp processed) in favour of greens or completely eschew, for health or the reasons you mentioned then fine.

I would actually be for outlawing maida, hydrogenated oil, processed crap before even thinking of outlawing meat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Singh]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Hinduism doesn't fit under category of a textbook definition unlike other religions.
Its a collection of indigenous beliefs practices etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Singh]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Thread is not about China. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[t_co]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Hinduism doesn't fit under category of a textbook definition unlike other religions.
Its a collection of indigenous beliefs practices etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Thank you. This is why Hindu fanaticism is an intrinsic oxymoron - there is no defined set of beliefs to be a fanatic about.

 

[Singh]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Thank you. This is why Hindu fanaticism is an intrinsic oxymoron - there is no defined set of beliefs to be a fanatic about.

Rather than be fanatic about your beliefs you can be fanatically opposed to some others belief.
That is rather than being defined on what is terms, it can be defined in what it is not terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[t_co]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Rather than be fanatic about your beliefs you can be fanatically opposed to some others belief.
That is rather than being defined on what is terms, it can be defined in what it is not terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Fair enough, although that would simply make them fanatics rather than Hindu fanatics.

 

[Singh]

re: Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

Fair enough, although that would simply make them fanatics rather than Hindu fanatics.

Well, a Hindu Fanatic would be someone who professes Hinduism or his Hinduness.

For eg. Islamic Terrorism is socalled because the terrorists justify it in the name of Islam. It doesn't matter if whether Islam actually is opposed to it or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[angeldude13]

i accidentally clicked no.
@mods can i change my answer to yes???

yes i mean you can have whatever you like

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Same argument can be made against dairy esp in India.

Its the burgeoning human population and demand that is putting pressure.

Ever since humans have existed we have had meat.

Without the ability to digest meat, the humans would've been extinct long back.

I am surprised you are comparing the energy footprint of dairy and meat products. There is a big difference between the two.

I don't quite see how could you conflate an evolutionary and survival trait and religious morals ?

From my understanding, not eating or eating meat doesn't make you a better person. Hitler was a vegetarian. Tibetan Monks do partake of non-vegetarian foodstuffs.

The only argument that can work is vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier and more longevity producing. And if you want to reduce the consumption of meat (esp processed) in favour of greens or completely eschew, for health or the reasons you mentioned then fine.

I would actually be for outlawing maida, hydrogenated oil, processed crap before even thinking of outlawing meat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I brought it up because you talked about evolution and I argued that evolution of ideas is also equally important for human race. Being vegetarian is one part of it. Hitler was vegetarian, well and good enough, but he killed other humans. So, he failed on another dimension. There are multiple criteria to evaluate a human being and one of them is respect for other animals.

And as I said before, rich societies which grow and evolve towards non-violence and that would include non-violence against animals. So people adopting vegetarianism in the west are doing it not just because it is energy efficient but because of their love for animals.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Like a Muslim can eat pork, drink alcohol, gamble, and be a "corrupt Muslim"?

And like I asked warriorextreme, have you ever considered the possibility that the "plagiarism" and manipulation was the other way around? That modern interpretations of the Vedic corpus by organizations like Arya Samaj deliberately promoted a certain viewpoint and agenda that may have been alien to Indians of the distant past?

Yes.

And the plagiarism can be introduced by anyone. And anyway making people vegetarian is a good agenda!