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

[The Last Stand]

Nothing wrong with you expressing your opinion, but this thread is not about "Mad Cow Disease," or any other medical effect of eating beef from certain diseased and infected bovines. Just because some bovines might carry some diseases, does not mean all bovines are harmful; just like some plants, such as Hemlock, are poisonous, does not mean all plants are harmful.

I am vegetarian, but this argument is finely worded. People have their tastes.

 

[A chauhan]

Why don't you tell us what exactly the SC said on this matter. What was their definition of 'religion', and what was their reasoning for saying that Hinduism was not a religion?

Well I am not interested in doing your homework, but I can tell you the summery, the H'ble SC said that "Hinduism can not be defined in the "narrow" definition of religion, it's a way of life".

There are no apostates in Hinduism because 'apostasy' is unique to organized, Abrahamic religions. 'Hinduism' has an equivalent mechanism in the form of outcastes, i.e. people who are shunned and excluded from mainstream society for engaging in practices deemed 'dirty', 'corrupting', or 'immoral' by the religious 'mainstream' (eating beef was one such practice). There were outcastes at least since the Gupta period, and probably before as well.

In practical terms, what is the difference between an apostate in a Christian or Muslim society, and an outcaste in Hindu society, in terms of how they were viewed by the rest of society?

Thanks to our forefathers for keeping Hinduism unorganized, otherwise no Buddhism/Islam could have existed in India, this unorganized form is a pro which didn't let Hindus to turn into religious terrorists. Kindly try to understand the difference between a religion and the caste system, just have a look at the Ahemadiyas, Shias in Pakistan, Sunnis do not consider them Muslim at all and are butchering them because they call themselve Muslims. While expulsion from the caste doesn't mean that a person won't be considered Hindu, other caste can mingle with him and he can worship/visit temples of the Hindu God on whom he has faith, rest of the things are just off topic.

The ironic thing is that varnashrama dharma is one of the few surviving aspects of the Classical Indian civilization. Besides these lingering remnants of chaturvarna, "dharma" is more or less dead. India's current political, social, and economic structure is almost entirely Westernized and follows Western models.

I didn't talk about Varnashrama, but Caste system. The fact is we are following westernized structure because we were slaves for a long time (especially in the times when the rich scientists were doing innovative works all over the world), which some people deny for their own agendas.

BTW your thread and the question asked in the OP doesn't make any sense.

 

[civfanatic]

Well I am not interested in doing your homework, but I can tell you the summery, the H'ble SC said that "Hinduism can not be defined in the "narrow" definition of religion, it's a way of life".

What is that "narrow" definition of a religion? What is a "way of life"? Isn't every religion a "way of life"?

Since you are the one who brought up the SC, and not me, you should at least be able to explain what they said.

Thanks to our forefathers for keeping Hinduism unorganized, otherwise no Buddhism/Islam could have existed in India

Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions.

While expulsion from the caste doesn't mean that a person won't be considered Hindu, other caste can mingle with him and he can worship/visit temples of the Hindu God on whom he has faith, rest of the things are just off topic.

Until fairly recently, no one would have dared to socially mingle with outcastes, and no they could not visit the same temples.

What are the minimum criteria for defining someone as a "Hindu"? I have yet to see anyone give a proper definition. The best one so far was @Singh's: a "Hindu" is anyone who would not be killed by Hindu mobs in a religious riot.

I didn't talk about Varnashrama, but Caste system. The fact is we are following westernized structure because we were slaves for a long time (especially in the times when the rich scientists were doing innovative works all over the world), which some people deny for their own agendas.

We are following Westernized structures because there are no other alternatives. Classical Indian civilization is largely extinct. We inherited a Westernized state from the British.

 

[pmaitra]

The best one so far was @Singh's: a "Hindu" is anyone who would not be killed by Hindu mobs in a religious riot.

Now that is a golden comment by @Singh. That is the de facto truth, and I fully endorse it.

 

[A chauhan]

What is that "narrow" definition of a religion? What is a "way of life"? Isn't every religion a "way of life"?

Since you are the one who brought up the SC, and not me, you should at least be able to explain what they said.

The main theme of your thread is "apostate" by eating a beef, the term 'apostate' itself is a sign of 'narrowness' of a religion, kindly enlighten yourself for that judgement it has been discussed in this forum for many times. Please show me any Hindu religious text which says that a person wont remain Hindu after eating a beef and so commits an apostate.

Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions.

How many % minority exist in KSA and how much religious freedom they have? moreover does the life of KSA minorities equate to the 'existence' as a religious minority ?

Until fairly recently, no one would have dared to socially mingle with outcastes, and no they could not visit the same temples.

Off course yes, many people who are expelled from one caste are accepted in other caste (through Samaj) and can visit the temples they like, expulsion from the caste doesn't mean no entry into a temple.

What are the minimum criteria for defining someone as a "Hindu"? I have yet to see anyone give a proper definition. The best one so far was @Singh's: a "Hindu" is anyone who would not be killed by Hindu mobs in a religious riot.

I can define all the religions with that logic, a person who would not be killed by a Buddhist in a religious riot is Buddhist and so on... please remain confused for the definition of a Hindu.

We are following Westernized structures because there are no other alternatives. Classical Indian civilization is largely extinct. We inherited a Westernized state from the British.

If we were free we could have created our own system and structure which westerners would be following today, but you wont understand this because you don't want to.

 

[civfanatic]

The main theme of your thread is "apostate" by eating a beef, the term 'apostate' itself is a sign of 'narrowness' of a religion, kindly enlighten yourself for that judgement it has been discussed in this forum for many times. Please show me any Hindu religious text which says that a person wont remain Hindu after eating a beef and so commits an apostate.

Show me what the SC said, that was my query. I am utterly fascinated by this talk of "way of life". I want to know why 'Hinduism' is a "way of life" and not a "religion", in the words of the SC. I want to know why other religions cannot be considered "ways of life" as well. Why can't you people respond to my actual questions? You yourself are the one who brought up the SC, so tell me what they said on the matter.

How many % minority exist in KSA and how much religious freedom they have? moreover does the life of KSA minorities equate to the 'existence' as a religious minority ?

Do you think KSA is the only country in the world where a majority of the population follow an Abrahamic religion?

KSA is a de facto theocracy with an officially sanctioned state religion. Any theocratic country with an official state religion will be repressive, but not all Abrahamic countries (i.e. countries where a majority of the population follow an Abrahamic religion) are theocracies, or even have a state religion.

Off course yes, many people who are expelled from one caste are accepted in other caste (through Samaj) and can visit the temples they like, expulsion from the caste doesn't mean no entry into a temple.

Are you claiming that upper castes and outcastes could always gather in the same temples, and participate in all the same religious activities?

I can define all the religions with that logic, a person who would not be killed by a Buddhist in a religious riot is Buddhist and so on... please remain confused for the definition of a Hindu.

I am indeed confused because not a single Hindu has provided a definition, even after repeated queries. Singh's definition is the best so far.

If we were free we could have created our own system and structure which westerners would be following today, but you wont understand this because you don't want to.

The very fact that we were not free, shows we did not have good systems and structures. You will never understand this, so I am probably wasting my time.

 

[drkrn]

No such person exists. @Dovah, are you trying to brain-wash a Pakistani national to support Modi?

actually there is.saraswati peetadhipathi in sankaracharya parampara is considered to be un official head of hinduism

 

[The Messiah]

There is no definition to a "Hindu" either given by law or sc, its is all subjective. Way of life is not a definition, every religion is a way of life for its believers..the definition must differentiate.

The most interesting being sec 2 sub clause 1(c), sec 2 sub clause 2 and sec 2 sub clause 3 hma read together which states:

- to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.

- The expression "Hindu" in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is, nevertheless, a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section.

So ST is not muslim, christian, parsi, jew so he must be a "Hindu" and thus this act should apply to him according to sec 2(1)(c) but according to sec 2(2) & 2(3) he is not exactly a "Hindu" by "religion" so this act need not apply to him. Thus proving that there is no strict definition of being a "Hindu" it is flexible to absorb nearly all practices.

[PDF]http://bokakhat.gov.in/pdf/The_hindu_marriage_act.pdf[/PDF]

 

[Bilal]

I am just curious i had a friend he was hindu and he used to eat beef?is that allowed from bhagva gita?

 

[The Messiah]

I am just curious i had a friend he was hindu and he used to eat beef?is that allowed from bhagva gita?

Can you handle the complexities of it ? first answer this, it is not for simple minds that cant think logically.

 

[Bilal]

You have a computer in your brain?or you prefer an ipad

 

[The Messiah]

You have a computer in your brain?or you prefer an ipad

computer is inferior to a brain and an ipad is for retards.

now get back to topic

 

[Bilal]

O Great Swami you should try beef so that your body gets working.

 

[Bilal]

I only eat beef,i dont remember any meal i never had beef ever.

 

[civfanatic]

@The Messiah

So a "Hindu", by the "official" definition, is anyone who doesn't follow the organized religions of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism?

 

[Bilal]

what about other folk religions they come in hindu faith

 

[The Messiah]

@The Messiah

So a "Hindu", by the "official" definition, is anyone who doesn't follow the organized religions of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism?

Yes and domiciled in India and not brought up as practising the other four religions if one parent is a hindu. For example if one of the parents is a hindu and the other from any one of the four religions then the child will be a hindu if he has not fulfilled the terms of the other religions. Feroze gandhi was a parsi, Indira gandhi a hindu..the court pronounced that both sanjay and rajiv were hindus because they didn't fulfil the criteriors of Zoroastrianism. Read judgement of Menaka Gandhi vs Indira Gandhi AIR 1985 Delhi.

Apparantly everyone apart from those four in India are hindus. This is so because there are no hard and fast rules that one must follow to be a hindu. The law doesn't give a precise definition thats why ST's dont come within the act for all laws despite not being from those four religions.

 

[Cliff@sea]

what about other folk religions they come in hindu faith

To tell u the truth , 'Hindu' is not a faith, Its a label that refers to a race of people and their customs,
or rather, how people on the other side of Indus referred to those who dwelled
here (on this side of Indus and around ).

The term seemed to have been coined by the Arab muslims as the first written reference of it is found in Ibn Battuta's works
and must have been a sort of blanket term for the people, their myriad customs and beliefs.

Over time just as the term 'Arab' and 'Muslim' have almost become synonymous to a large portion of non muslim world,
similarly the ethno and the religous aspects of the term, "Hindu" seem to have amalgamated over time

Ethinicity wise the demarcation of people who can be labelled as Hindus can be simply done by DNA
mapping and would also include a large portion of Indian Muslims

Faith wise it doesnt really refer to any one single way,

For the early muslims observers all that was practiced here on this side of Indus was Hinduism

While a lot of it is thought to be of as pure paganism by practioners of other abrahamic faiths,
It's infact a collection of beliefs, customs arts and even sciences among which some of them tend towards Polytheism
and some towards Monotheism, and some are what can be referred to just as Esocteric and Meditational sciences.

A lot of practising hindus often dislike being reffered to as Hindus and rather like to refer to their faith as "Sanatan Dharma" or the Eternal way

when one looks at the "Sanatana Dharma" texts closely its not so hard to wonder if it might have been even an early version of 'Islam' (Quite obviously it would not have an Arabic name), Interestingly and Coincidentlally the Hindu symbol for Om

and

Arabic Symbol for Allah

bear striking similarlity , especially if one turns them at right angle.

Its not hard to imagine that in the zeal to keep their faith pure
Muslims have largely avoided contact with anything so deeply Indian as Sanskrit and therefore consider all texts
written therein as Anti-Islamic.

for example the Prophet known as Noah (A.S) in the Books of Abramic Faith , seems almost like the semi-mythical figure "Manu" who gave the code that even today gives the dilapidated foundation to a lot of 'Hindu' practices,and is known as Manusmriti.


I can actually write an essay on this one, and i probably will sometime on some blog.

but i hope this answers your question for now .

This page here gives a pretty decent description : http://www.patheos.com/Library/Hinduism.html

 

[Cliff@sea]

In answer to Civ's question ,

In my Opinion Yes.

As long as u dont convert to some other religion you remain a Hindu for the law

Socially you may be a "Dharm Bhrasht" Hindu for some , but still a Hindu.


I dont even know if there is any direct injunction in any of the Vedas or other texts considered as cornerstone of Hinduism, where eating beef is banned

Is there ?

 

[civfanatic]

A few comments:

1) You are right that the term "Hindu" was originally an ethnic and geographic term that refers to a particular "race" of people from a particular region rather than a religion, but it was not the Arab Muslims who first used the term. The earliest use of the term came almost 1,000 years earlier, in the Naqsh-e Rostam inscription of Darius the Great, where he mentions a land called Hindush as a province of his empire. This refers to the land of Sindh, with the Persians dropping the initial *s (Sanskrit Sindhu --> Persian Hindu). The Greek term Indus, as well as the Arabic term al-Hind, both derive from the Persian name (and, in turn, from the original Sanskrit).

2) Regardless of how the term Hindu was used in the past, since the last century the usage of the term has been overwhelmingly religious. The term Hindu, in modern everyday language, has only a religious meaning and not an ethnic one. For example, Europeans as recently as the 19th century were using the term "Hindu Christian" to refer to Christians of Indian origin (like Nasranis). Nowadays, however, the term "Hindu Christian" would be seen as an oxymoron, and the term "Indian Christian" would be used instead. In the past, the term "Hindu" meant basically the same thing as "Indian", but that is no longer the case.

3)The term "Sanatama Dharma", as a name for the Hindu "religion", was coined only in the 19th century by Arya Samaj. No ancient Indian text refers to a religion called "Sanatama Dharma".

4) Any similarity between Om and the Arabic word Allah is purely coincidental.

5) The Medieval Islamic world was much more open-minded, innovative, and rational than the degenerate, self-righteous, and backwards cesspool that it is today. Medieval Muslim scholars definitely did not avoid Indian culture or Sanskrit; in fact, they readily studied Indian civilization and absorbed many aspects from it (the most important was probably the modern numeral system that we all use today). One of the most famous and influential Muslim scholars to study India was al-Beruni, who lived in the 10th-11th centuries. He spent some years in India, mastered Sanskrit, and wrote a comprehensive text on Indian culture, religion, science, and geography called the Tarikh al-Hind ("History of India").

To tell u the truth , 'Hindu' is not a faith, Its a label that refers to a race of people and their customs,
or rather, how people on the other side of Indus referred to those who dwelled
here (on this is side of Indus and around ).

The term seemed to have been coined by the Arab muslims as the first written reference of it is found in Ibn Battuta's works
and must have been a sort of blanket term for the people, their myriad customs and beliefs.

Over time just as the term 'Arab' and 'Muslim' have almost become synonymous to a large portion of non muslim world,
similarly the ethno and the religous aspects of the term, "Hindu" seem to have amalgamated over time

Ethinicity wise the demarcation of people who can be labelled as Hindus can be simply done by DNA
mapping and would also include a large portion of Indian Muslims

Faith wise it doesnt really refer to any one single way,

For the early muslims observers all that was practiced here on this side of Indus was Hinduism

While a lot of it is thought to be of as pure paganism by practioners of other abrahamic faiths,
It's infact a collection of beliefs, customs arts and even sciences among which some of them tend towards Polytheism
and some towards Monotheism, and some are what can be referred to just as Esocteric and Meditational sciences.

A lot of practising hindus often dislike being reffered to as Hindus and rather like to refer to their faith as "Sanatan Dharma" or the Eternal way

when one looks at the "Sanatana Dharma" texts closely its not so hard to wonder if it might have been even an early version of 'Islam' (Quite obviously it would not have an Arabic name), Interestingly and Coincidentlally the Hindu symbol for Om

and

Arabic Symbol for Allah

bear striking similarlity , especially if one turns them at right angle.

Its not hard to imagine that in the zeal to keep their faith pure
Muslims have largely avoided contact with anything so deeply Indian as Sanskrit and therefore consider all texts
written therein as Anti-Islamic.

for example the Prophet known as Noah (A.S) in the Books of Abramic Faith , seems almost like the semi-mythical figure "Manu" who gave the code that even today gives the dilapidated foundation to a lot of 'Hindu' practices,and is known as Manusmriti.


I can actually write an essay on this one, and i probably will sometime on some blog.

but i hope this answers your question for now .