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

[Dovah]

So is the moral gripe of vegetarians with the meat processing industry, or with the consumption of meat itself? These are two different things.

What is one raised his own animals, and then killed them in a humane fashion for self-consumption? Is that halaal according to vegetarians?

Depends on person to person I think. However, watching videos of industrial meat production can be very off putting.

 

[civfanatic]

Depends on person to person I think. However, watching videos of industrial meat production can be very off putting.

Also, how does abstaining from eating meat help to change the meat industry?

I can understand why someone might be put off by it, but just refusing to eat the meat will not change anything.

 

[pmaitra]

From the point of view of Hinduism, if one were to stick to the Vedas, meat eating is mandatory for any Kshatriya, and it is part and parcel of Kshatriya Dharma. Ditto for Shaktyas, or worshippers of Shakti.

Every animal and plant, is provided for human consumption by none other than Lord Vishnu himself. This is mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad, and does not make an exception with bovines.

I have seen a lot of claims about the Vedas being against consumption of meat or beef, but none of those claims have proven anything whatsoever. Saying, "protect four legged animals" is not the same thing as saying. "meat eating (or beef eating) is forbidden."

strength is not judged by meat eating..one can get proteins through other means also.

You are right that strength is not judged by eating meat, however, there exists no plant alternative to animal protein, save for milk.

 

[bennedose]

Translations of the Rig Veda, and the very act of translating the Rig Veda which is considered a completely pointless exercise by some scholars may be erroneous, but the "horse has bolted" - and many people have jumped into the "translate the Rig Veda" bandwagon and two or three generations of scholars have made their lives out of those translations - so the discussion about pointlessness is moot. I did a word search for animals and other concepts on a translation of the Rig Veda and found references to cattle having the largest number of words. References to fire has the second largest. One particular verse has been translated as a reference to horse meat being cooked. There are no references to cattle being eaten, although there are references to milk products including ghee. But cattle played a huge role in the lives of people 5000 years ago and genetic evidence shows that most cattle species in the world are derived from a progenitor Bos indicus species of cattle that dates back to the Harappan civilization.

With the Mahabharata and Ramayana both having stories of deer hunting as well as fishing. it is unlikely that cattle were never used for meat. It was possibly Buddhist and Jaina philosophy that may have introduced the idea that it is cruel to slaughter animals and that may later have been taken up by Hindus. Despite some rivalry, Buddhists, Jains and Hindus had no fundamental religious antagonism and rulers of one faith promoted the other faiths. Buddhist faith pretty much spread all over the subcontinent and Asia for that matter, but there was a later resurgence of Hindu thought in India, and while Buddhism was wiped out from western regions with the advent of Islam, the more militant Hindu faith remained while vegetarianism was probably assumed to be a Hindu trait. Early Brits who came to India wrote references to the absence of meats in the diet but a surfeit of sweet dishes - which they referred to as "sweetmeats".

 

[Ray]

That makes no sense at all @ray. We're not talking about palatability here; you're talking about the necessity of cooking beef well-done in India and using Chinese pigs as a comparison...

It makes sense to the sensible, I assure you.

The problem with you is that you are always seized with superficial and cursory attention to the issue and the apparently lack the eye for details.

Beef prepared for the table is carefully reared with the correct nutrients, medical checks, etc and hence are taken to be disease free when they are slaughtered.

However, beef not nurtured for the table, are those that can roam the range free and can thus be disease prone.

Hence, none can guarantee it from being disease free.

 

[Ray]

@t-co

Since China has a low tolerance to safety of food products (and I can give many examples) , you would possibly not understand how Beef is nurtured from the Farm to the Table and so may I enlighten you?

**************************************


Beef from Farm to Table

Since 1910, the first year that statistics were compiled, Americans have been eating an average of 56 pounds of beef yearly. About 40 million cattle are inspected yearly by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. In 2009, this translated into more than 61 pounds of beef per person. In calls to the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, beef is the second food category (behind turkey) callers most ask about. The following information answers many of their questions about the safe handling, preparation, cooking and storage of beef.

What is beef?
The domestication of cattle for food dates to about 6500 B.C. in the Middle East. Cattle were not native to America, but brought to the New World on ships by European colonists. Americans weren't big eaters of fresh beef until about 1870, due to the enormous growth of the cattle industry in the West. The introduction of cattle cars and refrigerated cars on the railroad facilitated distribution of the beef.

"Beef" is meat from full-grown cattle about 2 years old. A live steer weighs about 1,000 pounds and yields about 450 pounds of edible meat. There are at least 50 breeds of beef cattle, but fewer than 10 make up most cattle produced. Some major breeds are Angus, Hereford, Charolais, and Brahman.

"Baby beef" and "calf" are 2 interchangeable terms used to describe young cattle weighing about 700 pounds that have been raised mainly on milk and grass. The meat cuts from baby beef are smaller; the meat is light red and contains less fat than beef. The fat may have a yellow tint due to the vitamin A in grass.

"Veal" is meat from a calf which weighs about 150 pounds. Those that are mainly milk-fed usually are less than 3 months old. The difference between "veal" and "calf" is based on the color of their meat, which is determined almost entirely by diet. Veal is pale pink and contains more cholesterol than beef.

NOTE: This information is about whole muscle beef and variety beef. See " Ground Beef and Food Safety" for information about hamburger and ground beef.

How are cattle raised?
All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains.

Can hormones & antibiotics be used in cattle raising?
Antibiotics may be given to prevent or treat disease in cattle. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered until it is legal to slaughter the animal. This is so residues can exit the animal's system. FSIS randomly samples cattle at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this Monitoring Plan have shown a very low percentage of residue violations. Not all antibiotics are approved for use in all classes of cattle. However, if there is a demonstrated therapeutic need, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic that is approved in other classes for an animal in a non-approved class. In this case, no detectable residues of this drug may be present in the edible tissues of the animal at slaughter.

Hormones may be used to promote efficient growth. Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone (three natural hormones), and zeranol and trenbolone acetate (two synthetic hormones) may be used as an implant on the animal's ear. The hormone is time released, and is effective for 90 to 120 days. In addition, melengesterol acetate, which can be used to suppress estrus, or improve weight gain and feed efficiency, is approved for use as a feed additive. Not all combinations of hormones are approved for use in all classes of cattle. Hormones are approved for specific classes of animals only, and cannot be used in non-approved classes.

How is beef inspected?
Inspection is mandatory; grading is voluntary, and a plant pays to have its meat graded. USDA-graded beef sold at the retail level is Prime, Choice, and Select. Lower grades (Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner) are mainly ground or used in processed meat products. Retail stores may use other terms which must be different from USDA grades.

USDA Prime beef (about two percent of graded beef) has more fat marbling, so it is the most tender and flavorful. However, it is higher in fat content. Most of the graded beef sold in supermarkets is USDA Choice or USDA Select. The protein, vitamin, and mineral content of beef are similar regardless of the grade.

How is ungraded beef different?
All beef is inspected for wholesomeness. The overall quality of ungraded beef may be higher or lower than most government grades found in retail markets.

What is marbling?
Marbling is white flecks of fat within the meat muscle. The greater amount of marbling in beef, the higher the grade because marbling makes beef more tender, flavorful, and juicy.

Retail Cuts of Fresh Beef
There are four basic major (primal) cuts into which beef is separated: chuck, loin, rib, and round. It is recommended that packages of fresh beef purchased in the supermarket be labeled with the primal cut as well as the product, such as "chuck roast" or "round steak." This helps consumers know what type of heat is best for cooking the product. Generally, chuck and round are less tender and require moist heat such as braising; loin and rib can be cooked by dry heat methods such as broiling or grilling.

Unfortunately, names for various cuts can vary regionally in stores, causing confusion over the choice of cooking method. For example, a boneless top loin steak is variously called: strip steak, Kansas City Steak, N.Y. strip steak, hotel cut strip steak, ambassador steak, or club sirloin steak.

How much beef is consumed?
Figures from the USDA's Economic Research Service show average annual per capita beef consumption for the following selected periods:

How Much Beef is Consumed?
Year Weight Year Weight
1910 48 pounds 1960 59 pounds
1920 40 pounds 1970 80 pounds
1930 34 pounds 1980 72 pounds
1940 38 pounds 1990 64 pounds
1950 45 pounds 2009 61 pounds

Nutrition Labeling
Nutrition claims such as "lean" and "extra lean" are sometimes seen on beef products. Here are their definitions:

"Lean" - 100 grams of beef with less than 10 grams of fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat, and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol.

"Extra Lean" - 100 grams of beef with less than 5 grams of fat, less than 2 grams of saturated fat, and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol.

What does "natural" mean?
All fresh meat qualifies as "natural." Products labeled "natural" cannot contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient; and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed (ground, for example). All products claiming to be natural should be accompanied by a brief statement which explains what is meant by the term "natural."

Some companies promote their beef as "natural" because they claim their cattle weren't exposed to antibiotics or hormones and were totally raised on a range instead of being "finished" in a feedlot.

How & why is some beef aged?
Beef is aged to develop additional tenderness and flavor. It is done commercially under controlled temperatures and humidity. Since aging can take from 10 days to 6 weeks, USDA does not recommend aging beef in a home refrigerator.

Why is beef called a "red" meat?
Oxygen is delivered to muscles by the red cells in the blood. One of the proteins in meat, myoglobin, holds the oxygen in the muscle. The amount of myoglobin in animal muscles determines the color of meat. Beef is called a "red" meat because it contains more myoglobin than chicken or fish. Other "red" meats are veal, lamb, and pork.

Color of Beef
Beef muscle meat not exposed to oxygen (in vacuum packaging, for example) is a burgundy or purplish color. After exposure to the air for 15 minutes or so, the myoglobin receives oxygen and the meat turns bright, cherry red.

After beef has been refrigerated about 5 days, it may turn brown due to chemical changes in the myoglobin. Beef that has turned brown during extended storage may be spoiled, have an off-odor, and be tacky to the touch.

Iridescent Color of Roast Beef
Sliced cooked beef or lunch meat can have an iridescent color. Meat contains iron, fat, and many other compounds. When light hits a slice of meat, it splits into colors like a rainbow. There are also various pigments in meat compounds which can give it an iridescent or greenish cast when exposed to heat and processing. Iridescent beef isn't spoiled necessarily. Spoiled cooked beef would probably also be slimy or sticky and have an off-odor.

Additives
Additives are not allowed on fresh beef. If beef is processed, additives such as MSG, salt, or sodium erythorbate must be listed on the label.

Dating of Beef Products
Product dating is not required by Federal regulations. However, many stores and processors may voluntarily date packages of raw beef or processed beef products. If a calendar date is shown, there must be a phrase explaining the meaning of the date.

Use or freeze products with a "Sell-By" date within 3 to 5 days of purchase.

If the manufacturer has determined a "Use-By" date, observe it. This is a quality assurance date after which peak quality begins to lessen but the product may still be used. It's always best to buy a product before its date expires. It's not important if a date expires after freezing beef because all foods stay safe while properly frozen.

What foodborne organisms are associated with beef?
Escherichia coli can colonize in the intestines of animals, which could contaminate muscle meat at slaughter. E. coli O157:H7 is a rare strain that produces large quantities of a potent toxin that forms in and causes severe damage to the lining of the intestine. The disease produced by it is called Hemorrhagic Colitis and is characterized by bloody diarrhea. E. coli O157:H7 is easily destroyed by thorough cooking.

Salmonella may be found in the intestinal tracts of livestock, poultry, dogs, cats, and other warm-blooded animals. There are about 2,000 Salmonella bacterial species. Freezing doesn't kill this microorganism, but it is destroyed by thorough cooking. Salmonella must be eaten to cause illness. They cannot enter the body through a skin cut. Cross-contamination can occur if raw meat or its juices contact cooked food or foods that will be eaten raw, such as salad.

Staphylococcus aureus can be carried on human hands, nasal passages, or throats. Most foodborne illness outbreaks are a result of contamination from food handlers and production of a heat-stable toxin in the food. Sanitary food handling and proper cooking and refrigerating should prevent staphylococcal foodborne illness.

Listeria monocytogenes is destroyed by cooking, but a cooked product can be recontaminated by poor handling practices and poor sanitation. FSIS has a zero tolerance for Listeria monocytogenes in cooked and ready-to-eat products such as beef franks or lunchmeat. Observe handling information such as "Keep Refrigerated" and "Use-By" dates on labels.

Rinsing Beef
It isn't necessary to wash raw beef before cooking it. Any bacteria which might be present on the surface would be destroyed by cooking.

How to Handle Beef Safely

Raw Beef: Select beef just before checking out at the register. Put packages of raw beef in disposable plastic bags, if available, to contain any leakage which could cross-contaminate cooked foods or produce. Beef, a perishable product, is kept cold during store distribution to retard the growth of bacteria.

Take beef home immediately and refrigerate it at 40 °F; use within 3 to 5 days (1 or 2 days for ground beef and variety meats such as liver, kidneys, tripe, sweetbreads, or tongue) or freeze (0 °F). If kept frozen continuously, it will be safe indefinitely.

It is safe to freeze beef in its original packaging or repackage it. However, for long-term freezing, overwrap the porous store plastic with aluminum foil, freezer paper, or freezer-weight plastic wrap or bags to prevent "freezer burn," which appears as grayish-brown leathery spots and is caused by air reaching the surface of food. Cut freezer-burned portions away either before or after cooking the beef. Heavily freezer-burned products may have to be discarded for quality reasons. For best quality, use steaks and roasts within 9 to 12 months.

Ready-Prepared Beef: For fully-cooked, take-out beef dishes such as Chinese food, barbecued ribs, or fast food hamburgers, be sure they are hot at pickup. Use cooked beef within 2 hours (1 hour if the air temperature is above 90 °F) or refrigerate it at 40 °F in shallow, covered containers. Eat within 3 to 4 days, either cold or reheated to 165 °F (hot and steaming). It is safe to freeze ready-prepared beef dishes. For best quality, use within 4 months.
Safe Defrosting
There are three safe ways to defrost beef: in the refrigerator, in cold water, and in the microwave. Never defrost on the counter or in other locations.
Refrigerator:. It's best to plan ahead for slow, safe thawing in the refrigerator. Ground beef, stew meat, and steaks may defrost within a day. Bone-in parts and whole roasts may take 2 days or longer. Once the raw beef defrosts, it will be safe in the refrigerator for 3 to 5 days before cooking. During this time, if you decide not to use the beef, you can safely refreeze it without cooking it first.
Cold Water:. To defrost beef in cold water, do not remove packaging. Be sure the package is airtight or put it into a leakproof bag. Submerge the beef in cold water, changing the water every 30 minutes so that it continues to thaw. Small packages of beef may defrost in an hour or less; a 3- to 4-pound roast may take 2 to 3 hours.
Microwave:. When microwave defrosting beef, plan to cook it immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become warm and begin to cook during microwaving. Holding partially-cooked food is not recommended because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed.
Foods defrosted in the microwave or by the cold water method should be cooked before refreezing because they may have been held at temperatures above 40 °F.

It is safe to cook frozen beef in the oven, on the stove, or grill without defrosting it first; the cooking time may be about 50% longer. Do not cook frozen beef in a slow cooker.

Marinating
Marinate beef in the refrigerator up to 5 days. Boil used marinade before brushing on cooked beef. Discard any uncooked leftover marinade.

Partial Cooking
Never brown or partially cook beef to refrigerate and finish cooking later because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed. It is safe to partially pre-cook or microwave beef immediately before transferring it to the hot grill to finish cooking.

Liquid in Package
Many people think the red liquid in packaged fresh beef is blood. However, blood is removed from beef during slaughter and only a small amount remains within the muscle tissue. Since beef is about 3/4 water, this natural moisture combined with protein is the source of the liquid in the package.

Safe Cooking
For safety, the USDA recommends cooking hamburgers and ground beef mixtures such as meat loaf to 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer. Cook all organ and variety meats (such as heart, kidney, liver and tongue) to 160 °F.

Cook all raw beef steaks and roasts to a minimum internal temperature of 145 °F as measured with a food thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving or consuming. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook meat to higher temperatures.

Times are based on beef at refrigerator temperature (40 °F). Remember that appliances and outdoor grills can vary in heat. Use a food thermometer to check for safe cooking and doneness of beef.

Approximate Beef Cooking Times °F
Type of Beef Size Cooking Method Cooking Time Internal Temperature
Rib Roast, bone in 4 to 6 lbs. Roast 325° 23-25 min./lb. 145 °F and allow to rest at least 3 minutes

Rib Roast, boneless rolled 4 to 6 lbs. Roast 325° Add 5-8 min./lb. to times above
Chuck Roast, Brisket 3 to 4 lbs. *Braise 325° *Braise 325°
Round or Rump Roast 2 1/2 to 4 lbs. Roast 325° 30-35 min./lb.
Tenderloin, whole 4 to 6 lbs. Roast 425° 45-60 min. total
Steaks 3/4" thick Broil/Grill 4-5 min. per side
Stew or Shank Cross Cuts 1 to 1 1/2" thick Cover with liquid; simmer 2 to 3 hours
Short Ribs 4" long and 2" thick *Braise 325° 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours
Hamburger patties, fresh 4 ounces Grill, broil or fry 3 to 5 minutes per side 160 °F
*Braising is roasting or simmering less-tender meats with a small amount of liquid in a tightly covered pan.

Microwave Directions:
When microwaving unequal size pieces of beef, arrange in dish or on rack so thick parts are toward the outside of dish and thin parts are in the center; cook on medium-high or medium power.
Place a roast in an oven cooking bag or in a covered pot.
Refer to the manufacturer's directions that accompany the microwave oven for suggested cooking times.
Use a meat thermometer to test for doneness in several places to be sure temperatures listed above have been reached.
Storage Times
Since product dates aren't a guide for safe use of a product, how long can the consumer store the food and still use it at top quality? Follow these tips:
Purchase the product before the date expires.
Follow handling recommendations on product.
Keep beef in its package until using.
It is safe to freeze beef in its original packaging. If freezing longer than 2 months, overwrap these packages with airtight heavy-duty foil, plastic wrap, or freezer paper or place the package inside a plastic bag.
For storage times, consult the following chart.
Home Storage of Beef Products
If product has a "Use-By" Date, follow that date. If product has a "Sell-By" Date or no date, cook or freeze the product by the times on the following chart.
Storage Times for Beef Products
Product Refrigerator 40 °F Freezer 0 °F
Fresh beef roast, steaks, chops, or ribs 3 to 5 days 6 to 12 months
Fresh beef liver or variety meats 1 or 2 days 3 to 4 months
Home cooked beef, soups, stews or casseroles 3 to 4 days 2 to 3 months
Store-cooked convenience meals 1 to 2 days 2 to 3 months
Cooked beef gravy or beef broth 1 or 2 days 2 to 3 months
Beef hot dogs or lunch meats, sealed in package 2 weeks (or 1 week after a "Use-By" date) 1 to 2 months
Beef hot dogs, opened package 7 days 1 to 2 months
Lunch meats, opened package 3 to 5 days 1 to 2 months
TV dinners, frozen casseroles Keep Frozen 3 to 4 months
Canned beef products in pantry 2 to 5 years in pantry; 3 to 4 days after opening After opening, 2 to 3 months
Jerky, commercially vacuum packaged 1 year in pantry
Refrigerate 2 to 3 months Do not freeze
Last Modified Aug 06, 2013
FSIS Home | USDA.gov | FoodSafety.gov | USA.gov | Whitehouse.gov

Beef from Farm to Table

 

[Singh]

You are right that strength is not judged by eating meat, however, there exists no plant alternative to animal protein, save for milk.

Not true. Legumes have about as much protein as meat per ounce.

 

[pmaitra]

Not true. Legumes have about as much protein as meat per ounce.

Lentils come close enough as a source of complex proteins, and yes, they do have proteins in good quantities. The type of complex proteins that animal sources offer are not offered by plants.

 

[Singh]

Lentils come close enough as a source of complex proteins, and yes, they do have proteins in good quantities. The type of complex proteins that animal sources offer are not offered by plants.

What sort of proteins ? Mix legumes/grains and get complete proteins and other phytonutrients.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[pmaitra]

What sort of proteins ? Mix legumes/grains and get complete proteins and other phytonutrients.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Plant proteins can never be a complete substitute for animal proteins.

Here is an interesting explanation why depending on plant proteins and avoiding animal protein makes our diet sub-optimal.

We have information that the primary difference between animal and plant proteins is their amino acid profiles and it is those profiles that direct the rates at which the absorbed amino acids are put to use within the body. Animal based proteins, of course, are much more similar to our proteins, thus are used more readily and rapidly than plant proteins. That is, 'substrate' amino acids derived from animal based proteins are more readily available for our own protein synthesizing reactions which allows them to operate at full tilt. Plant proteins are somewhat compromised by their limitation of one or more amino acids. When we restore the relatively deficient amino acid in a plant protein, we get a response rate equivalent to animal proteins.

Link: -Animal vs. Plant Protein-&#124- T. Colin Campbell Foundation

 

[Singh]

Lentils come close enough as a source of complex proteins, and yes, they do have proteins in good quantities. The type of complex proteins that animal sources offer are not offered by plants.

What sort of proteins ? Mix legumes/grains and get complete proteins and other phytonutrients.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Singh]

Plant proteins can never be a complete substitute for animal proteins.

Here is an interesting explanation why depending on plant proteins and avoiding animal protein makes our diet sub-optimal.

Link: -Animal vs. Plant Protein-&#124- T. Colin Campbell Foundation

That's what I said.
If you mix two different vegetarian protein sources you'll get complete proteins a la animals.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[pmaitra]

That's what I said.
If you mix two different vegetarian protein sources you'll get complete proteins a la animals.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Yes, you did mention mixing proteins, and that is where I disagree, because, none of the ingredients in the mix completely substitutes animal protein. Plant proteins are, in layman's words, defined as slow absorbing proteins, and are not as efficient as animal proteins, when the consumer is in a trade that involves a lot of physical labour.

 

[arnabmit]

On a lighter note...

Isn't that akin to saying "beer has less vitamins, that's why we need to drink lots of it"

That's what I said.
If you mix two different vegetarian protein sources you'll get complete proteins a la animals.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[aerokan]

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"?

From the start to finish, all your 'logical' conclusions are based on few assumptions. What if your basic assumptions are themself questionable?
Why do you think VEDAS are opposing the beef eating? Who interpreted it that way and who validated it? And how can there be any sole authority on open-source religion? Just because it is open-source doesn't mean it is sourceless. Do you understand what I say?

Your assumption of true or false are based on some assumptions that VEDAS support or deny as rigidly as other set of religious books of other religions. VEDAS are not rules. They are guidelines and best practices. That's the first assumption vanishing into thin air. Even if we assume they are rules, what makes you think VEDAS itself are the sole authority of Hinduism. That's the second assumption.

Even if we assume what all you assume is true, then there is a third assumption that it can only be either true or false. Have you ever contemplated the existence of the quantum logic which says it can be true and false at the same time and can be neither as well. If we evaluate the same quantum logic from binary logic of simple true or false, you will never get to the end of it. If you use quantum logic, you will understand that you will never get to the end of it like trying to find the end point of a circle. But that's beside the point.

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.

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

Hindu atheist is an oxymoron.. u say!!! Let's take just atheist for now. Who are atheists? By generic definition, they are those who believe that God doesn't exist. So by the definition of religion, one can assume atheism is a religion. What is a religion? Religion is a set of beliefs which implies the existence of God, or supernatural force or those who follow a set of practices or beliefs. And since atheists follow a certain set of beliefs, are atheists followers of a religion or not? See how that sounds. If you go by that, for most part everything will be an oxymoron. And you and I will look like morons.

So I hereby declare that atheism doesn't exist in this world

If all humans learn to agree to disagree, they might probably become Hindus. But the probability theory states that there is no possibility of zero or 1, only an approach to either. Afterall, doesn't Hinduism says 'vasuidaika kutubam'

As I said before, if you are expecting me to be specific to the core, you are in for a big disappointment.

But if you still insist after all this, I would say option 3 would be the nearest option. It's upto you to take the option 3 as written in stone or pursue the answers further. I am really glad that you are questioning more and more and getting nearer to the truth. Keep up with the search.

As a pointer, there is only one simple base for Hinduism from what I understand. It's to search for the eternal truth. It may dawn one day or we will end up nowise than we are from before. The answers should come from within, not from others. Afterall the search for truth will end up getting you closer to the truth but may not take you to the truth as the probability theory suggests.

 

[civfanatic]

From the start to finish, all your 'logical' conclusions are based on few assumptions. What if your basic assumptions are themself questionable?
Why do you think VEDAS are opposing the beef eating? Who interpreted it that way and who validated it? And how can there be any sole authority on open-source religion? Just because it is open-source doesn't mean it is sourceless. Do you understand what I say?

I was not the one who claimed that Vedas are opposed to beef-eating. That claim was raised by other Hindus on this thread, whose names I have provided in my post. My own view is that Vedas are untranslatable and do not even belong in this debate, but I am not discussing my own views here but rather the views of other posters. On the topic of beef-eating, we have two mutually exclusive opinions from different posters. One Hindu poster even claimed that any Hindu who eats beef (even meat in general) is a "corrupt Hindu"; indeed, his views are probably shared by plenty of other Hindus. Now, since that poster does not have any authority over "Hinduism" (as you correctly pointed out, "Hinduism" lacks the authority of organized religions), it is perfectly possible for other people who call themselves "Hindu" to eat beef every day and have no problem with it. But they would be considered "corrupt" and "immoral" by other Hindus, like the poster I described. So even though there is no "religious authority" that can define in clear terms what a "proper Hindu" should or should not do, individual "Hindus" may have their own personal guidelines that are mutually incompatible with those of other "Hindus".

So then the important question is, when you have all these different "Hindus" with their own idea of "Hinduism" and being a "good Hindu", what is the underlying ideology or philosophy that unites all these people called "Hindus" (besides geography and the geographic origin of their belief systems)?

Even if we assume what all you assume is true, then there is a third assumption that it can only be either true or false. Have you ever contemplated the existence of the quantum logic which says it can be true and false at the same time and can be neither as well. If we evaluate the same quantum logic from binary logic of simple true or false, you will never get to the end of it. If you use quantum logic, you will understand that you will never get to the end of it like trying to find the end point of a circle. But that's beside the point.

The statements I provided above cannot be true and false at the same time. They directly contradict each other.

If neither statement is true nor false (i.e. the truth/falsehood cannot be ascertained, the third option I described), then it would only show that Hindus are confused about their religion, for making such claims in the first place.

Hindu atheist is an oxymoron.. u say!!! Let's take just atheist for now. Who are atheists? By generic definition, they are those who believe that God doesn't exist. So by the definition of religion, one can assume atheism is a religion. What is a religion? Religion is a set of beliefs which implies the existence of God, or supernatural force or those who follow a set of practices or beliefs. And since atheists follow a certain set of beliefs, are atheists followers of a religion or not? See how that sounds. If you go by that, for most part everything will be an oxymoron. And you and I will look like morons.

A "religion" is a set of beliefs that concerns itself with the supernatural, and/or morality and a sense of "right". The latter is the original meaning of the term "religion", which is derived from the Latin religio. Atheism is not a "religion" because it does not concern itself with the supernatural or with morality; it simply indicates an absence of belief in God. Every child for example is born as an atheist, because that child has no concept of "God" when it is born. At the same time, however, that child also does not have any "beliefs", as it is not yet capable of formulating them.

Absence of belief is not a belief in itself. That's like saying not playing basketball, is a sport (to quote @Godless-Kafir).

If all humans learn to agree to disagree, they might probably become Hindus.

So, is agreeing to disagree the only requirement to becoming a "Hindu"?

If a Christian and a Muslim agree to disagree, they become "Hindus"?

As a pointer, there is only one simple base for Hinduism from what I understand. It's to search for the eternal truth. It may dawn one day or we will end up nowise than we are from before. The answers should come from within, not from others. Afterall the search for truth will end up getting you closer to the truth but may not take you to the truth as the probability theory suggests.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "eternal truth". I have no reason to believe that there is.

There is only sunyata, i.e. emptiness and absence of truth.

 

[Singh]

Yes, you did mention mixing proteins, and that is where I disagree, because, none of the ingredients in the mix completely substitutes animal protein. Plant proteins are, in layman's words, defined as slow absorbing proteins, and are not as efficient as animal proteins, when the consumer is in a trade that involves a lot of physical labour.

Slow absorbing ? how does it matter if a protein is slow or fast acting ?
If you are working hard and want to preserve your muscle mass or increase it, you just need to be in positive nitrogen balance via excess protein.

In the same way glucose is faster acting than rice and wheat, and ergo we should all eschew rice and wheat for fast acting protein (of which there is only one kind and that is whey)

Meat Proteins are the slowest absorbing of all proteins (not in and of themselves but because of associated fat and mass). In fact because of slow absorption animal meat is linked with colo-rectal cancer.

And Plant Proteins come loaded with phytonutrients, which research suggests is essential for good health and longevity.

 

[Singh]

On a lighter note...

Isn't that akin to saying "beer has less vitamins, that's why we need to drink lots of it"

Its akin to saying beer has too few vitamins, drink whisky and pop a multi.

 

[Singh]

@civfanatic Aghoris for instance have a rite, where they are supposed to eat/taste corpse meat. Basically, a particular school of thought believes e=mc2. That all matter is energy, and it can be transmuted. (From my limited understanding)

 

[pmaitra]

Slow absorbing ? how does it matter if a protein is slow or fast acting ?

It does. Physical activity requires quick and readily available energy. The body often prefers to burn protein than fat, and thus, if the body has enough animal proteins, the efficiency of the body in using energy is improved.

If you are working hard and want to preserve your muscle mass or increase it, you just need to be in positive nitrogen balance via excess protein.

That is correct.

In the same way glucose is faster acting than rice and wheat, and ergo we should all eschew rice and wheat for fast acting protein (of which there is only one kind and that is whey)

Glucose is faster acting than rice and wheat, true, but rice and wheat have their own uses. A balanced diet should have a balanced amount of all kinds of carbs. For slow breakdown of carbs, one can use buckwheat, and for fast breakdown, rice and wheat.

Meat Proteins are the slowest absorbing of all proteins (not in and of themselves but because of associated fat and mass).

You are correct. That is why they recommend lean meat, i.e. white-meat, which tends to have less fat. However, to get enough iron, one has to consume red-meat, after carefully removing the fat.

In fact because of slow absorption animal meat is linked with colo-rectal cancer.

Yes, that is correct.

And Plant Proteins come loaded with phytonutrients, which research suggests is essential for good health and longevity.

Again, correct, and I agree, that plant proteins are necessary. My point is, plant proteins, while being necessary, do not make a complete diet.

I will put it simply:
Plant proteins are necessary for the body. However, relying solely on plant proteins makes for an imbalanced diet, best described as mal-nutrition. There is a reason why milk, curd, paneer, etc., despite being essentially non-vegetarian, are considered 'vegetarian,' from Indian cultural (or religious) PoV. It is because people have long realized that plant protein alone is insufficient.