| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Arindam Banerjee" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 08:43:27 PM |
| Object: |
Sacrifices, past and present |
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote ...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote:
No atheist can not be relied upon to be moral. They can do any evil,
without any restraints, for they are not checked by any universal
moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine,
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals. In modern
atheist society there are lots of sacrifices: *trillions* of animals
are sacrificed to the belly gods controlled by the meat industry;
virgins are sacrificed to the lust of atheists and subsequently turned
to aborting their offspring; harmless pedestrians and drivers
massacred on the roads, in the hundreds of thousands to satisfy the
lust of oil-driven dynamics; peasants are sacrificed by nukes and
napalm for the war-driven dynamics; oceans demolished of life as
sacrifice to the whaling and fishing gods; the entire society is made
to live and work in concrete and glass cages; entire populations are
driven to depression and deprivation; family values are ruined; the
environment is polluted; the suaver or brasher or more shameless the
liar, the greater his or her chances of success... If some animals
were in fact slaughtered in ceremony and with respect, what is that as
compared with the sacrifices made in the modern atheist world?
If
the practice was universal, then were all these societies following a
universal moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine?
The practice was *not* universal. There always was a reaction to
bloody sacrifice. The protagonists main argument was that bloody
sacrifice is necessary for the martial spirit to exist and flourish.
Without blood sacrifice of animals, they could not retain their
fighting abilities, and so, could not defend the vegetarians.
However, the fighters were usually vegetarian normally. Over time,
blood sacrifices became less and less. The sacrifice of the goat was
replaced by the sacrifice of a coconut or gourd.
* no monotheists or vegetarians that we know of, back then
** including humans in some instances
for humility and the surrender of the ego -
qualities atheists are incapable of.
That rings a bell! Can someone remember who said, "One shouldn't be
more humble than an atheist or more egotistic than a Christian"?
A Naval ensign once wrote to Einstein (who you indicate was a man
incapable of humility and surrender of ego)
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist. Not that I am a fan of
Einstein. But my scientific heroes - Newton and Maxwell - were
theists. Tesla, by far the greatest of all inventors, was also
theistic. He paid heavily for his fondness for ancient Indian
scriptures, though; as the treacherous and bigoted USAn public called
him Dr Evil as a consequence.
The late Harry Miller of the Indian Express was once asked why he did
social service if he was an atheist. I can't remember his response,
but
it was interesting when I read it.
AB: Many arrogant and egotistical people do social service. So many
of the entertainers and sportsmen took part in the tsunami-related
fund raising.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
11 Mar 2005 03:26:37 AM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote ...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote:
No atheist can not be relied upon to be moral. They can do any
evil,
without any restraints, for they are not checked by any universal
moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine,
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist, what
protests were there to animal sacrifices? Did Spaniards record any
protests by Aztecs. Any protests by native Americans in North America?
In modern
atheist society there are lots of sacrifices: *trillions* of animals
are sacrificed to the belly gods controlled by the meat industry;
That is modern theist society. Also ancient theist society. From the
Ramayana:
Of men employed in making and eating the sweetmeats called
Khandavaragas, and of animals slain for food, there was no end
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14089.htm
Natives of developed countries are more likely to be vegetarian if
they're atheist than theist. In India too, the spread of vegetarianism
owes to atheists like Mahavira and the Buddha.
virgins are sacrificed to the lust of atheists
The lust of theists, mostly. In ancient society too.
If some animals
were in fact slaughtered in ceremony and with respect, what is that
as
compared with the sacrifices made in the modern atheist world?
How would you slaughter someone (or your dog) with ceremony and
respect?
The protagonists main argument was that bloody
sacrifice is necessary for the martial spirit to exist and flourish.
Baloney. There are numerous religious books with injunctions re.
sacrifice? Which of these books mention a notion that bloody sacrifice
is necessary for the martial spirit to exist and flourish?
Without blood sacrifice of animals, they could not retain their
fighting abilities, and so, could not defend the vegetarians.
However, the fighters were usually vegetarian normally.
Really? In which societies in Africa were fighters normally vegetarian?
A Naval ensign once wrote to Einstein (who you indicate was a man
incapable of humility and surrender of ego)
You indicated that atheists were thus incapable.
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist,
Correction: Einstein was not an arrogant atheist nor a professional
one:
Einstein replied, "rather than be billed as a professional atheist ..."
like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
If he was arrogant, he was an arrogant atheist.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist. Not that I am a fan of
Einstein. But my scientific heroes - Newton and Maxwell - were
theists.
Most, if not all, scientists of the day were theists.
Tesla, by far the greatest of all inventors, was also
theistic. He paid heavily for his fondness for ancient Indian
scriptures, though; as the treacherous and bigoted USAn public called
him Dr Evil as a consequence.
Any references to his being called Dr Evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 06:55:10 AM |
|
|
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1110533197.054418.222410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote ...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote:
No atheist can not be relied upon to be moral. They can do any
evil,
without any restraints, for they are not checked by any universal
moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine,
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist,
Did they have all records for everything? Can we judge a society in
its entirety from dubious modern scholarship of bare and corroded
evidence? In the Indian context animal sacrifices brought out the
peaceful or at any rate non-sacrificial religions of the Jains and
Buddhists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 10:36:24 AM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote ...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote:
No atheist can not be relied upon to be moral. They can do any
evil, without any restraints, for they are not checked by any
universal moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine,
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of
animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was
a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist,
Did they have all records for everything? Can we judge a society in
its entirety from dubious modern scholarship of bare and corroded
evidence?
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
In the Indian context animal sacrifices brought out the
peaceful or at any rate non-sacrificial religions of the Jains and
Buddhists.
Jains and Buddhists didn't always exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 04:56:26 PM |
|
|
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1110818184.873132.5790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote ...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote:
No atheist can not be relied upon to be moral. They can do any
evil, without any restraints, for they are not checked by any
universal moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine,
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of
animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was
a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist,
Did they have all records for everything? Can we judge a society in
its entirety from dubious modern scholarship of bare and corroded
evidence?
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
Of course there were always protests against animal sacrifice, or for
that matter, any kind of obvious waste or degradation. This is only
Newton's Third Law in social practice. The whole business of nastika
revival in the 6th century BC took place as a revulsion against animal
eating as a resulting of animal slaughter as sacrifice.
Throughout the past two thousand years, animal sacrifice has been on
the decline in India, though it is still carried out in the most
traditional places that I have visited. Such as in the courtyard of
the Raja of Ratu, in Bihar; and some pujas in Bengal. One of Tagore's
plays deals with this theme. When Ashoka limited animal sacrifice, to
promote his Buddhist regime, he was championing the cause of animal
sacrifice protesters. In all meat-eating countries, there is a strong
vegetarian or vegan group, and I have noted that others naturally
defer to them on the deepest issues relating to morality.
In any case, the study of past and dead cultures (animistic and
polytheistic) has been undertaken by the monotheists and atheists, and
the latter group has, naturally, a vested interest. Their sayings
resulting from their blinkered scholarship need not to taken as true
by the former group. In the Indian context, the lies and half-truths
of those 19th century racist European scholars are getting apparent
now, thanks to Usenet, Dr Frawley and Dr Shri Jai Maharaj-ji, travel,
publicly available literature, better understanding of ancient Indian
texts as published by genuine Indians, etc.
In the Indian context animal sacrifices brought out the
peaceful or at any rate non-sacrificial religions of the Jains and
Buddhists.
Jains and Buddhists didn't always exist.
Neither did the human race on this planet, if we go by fossil record.
Buddhists got prominence from around 200 BC, but the totally
non-violent Jains were around as long as Brahmins were around.
Mahavira was only the last of their several Tirthankars (guide,
pathfinder).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 05:28:01 PM |
|
|
(Arindam Banerjee) wrote in alt.atheism
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote in message
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
Of course there were always protests against animal sacrifice, or for
that matter, any kind of obvious waste or degradation. This is only
Newton's Third Law in social practice. The whole business of nastika
revival in the 6th century BC took place as a revulsion against animal
eating as a resulting of animal slaughter as sacrifice.
Is butchering animals for food considered animal sacrifice to you,
or is it only when the animal is burned up without eating any of it
that's the problem?
I see a problem with the second, but not the first.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 09:05:32 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<a57c31ttnruf2aodbp8v9bdg2a6pt3ijge@4ax.com>...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in alt.atheism
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote in message
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
Of course there were always protests against animal sacrifice, or for
that matter, any kind of obvious waste or degradation. This is only
Newton's Third Law in social practice. The whole business of nastika
revival in the 6th century BC took place as a revulsion against animal
eating as a resulting of animal slaughter as sacrifice.
Is butchering animals for food considered animal sacrifice to you,
or is it only when the animal is burned up without eating any of it
that's the problem?
To repost the original context:
****
RM: 4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always was a
strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals. In modern
atheist society there are lots of sacrifices: *trillions* of animals
are sacrificed to the belly gods controlled by the meat industry;
virgins are sacrificed to the lust of atheists and subsequently turned
to aborting their offspring; harmless pedestrians and drivers
massacred on the roads, in the hundreds of thousands to satisfy the
lust of oil-driven dynamics; peasants are sacrificed by nukes and
napalm for the war-driven dynamics; oceans demolished of life as
sacrifice to the whaling and fishing gods; the entire society is made
to live and work in concrete and glass cages; entire populations are
driven to depression and deprivation; family values are ruined; the
environment is polluted; the suaver or brasher or more shameless the
liar, the greater his or her chances of success... If some animals
were in fact slaughtered in ceremony and with respect, what is that as
compared with the sacrifices made in the modern atheist world?
RM:>If
the practice was universal, then were all these societies following a
universal moral code emanating from the Unknown Divine?
AB: The practice was *not* universal. There always was a reaction to
bloody sacrifice. The protagonists main argument was that bloody
sacrifice is necessary for the martial spirit to exist and flourish.
Without blood sacrifice of animals, they could not retain their
fighting abilities, and so, could not defend the vegetarians.
However, the fighters were usually vegetarian normally. Over time,
blood sacrifices became less and less. The sacrifice of the goat was
replaced by the sacrifice of a coconut or gourd.
****
Butchering animals for food is sacrifice to the belly god.
Incompetent and heartless people do not want to work hard, to make
vegetarian food tasty. That is why they have to kill so many animals,
simply for taste. Definitely so much unnecessary killing is a
sacrifice to their very real belly gods of gluttony and laziness. In
animal sacrifice, the animals is killed ceremonially, then its body
parts consumed by the sacrificers. It is supposed to be a rare event
in a predominantly vegetarian or at least not-so-much red meat eating
society. With modern techniques, raising and killing animals has
become a way of life. It is assumed that even in Western countries,
they always consumed so much meat. But the facts are different. Only
the rich ate much meat, and so, killed animals without remorse. The
poor got very little meat in the past, but now, they are living the
lifestyles of their past aristocrats.
I see a problem with the second, but not the first.
The aristocrats who ate a lot of meat also did a lot of exercise with
their trainers. Thus they were strong and also not fat. With
MacDonald superserves and huge steaks elsewhere, and de-emphasis on
exercise, the problem is a quickly fattening population. It is well
known that fat people find it very difficult to reproduce. Maybe, you
can see a problem here; but as for me, what me worry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 10:19:07 PM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:<a57c31ttnruf2aodbp8v9bdg2a6pt3ijge@4ax.com>...
adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in alt.atheism
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote in message
It is supposed to be a rare event
in a predominantly vegetarian or at least not-so-much red meat eating
society. With modern techniques, raising and killing animals has
become a way of life. It is assumed that even in Western countries,
they always consumed so much meat. But the facts are different.
Only
the rich ate much meat, and so, killed animals without remorse.
Even among the rich, meat probably was not that common in most
societies.
In medieval Europe it is estimated that 70 percent of the diet
consisted of cereals with cheese as the main source of protein.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 05:14:43 PM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could
find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of
animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always
was
a strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist,
Did they have all records for everything? Can we judge a society
in
its entirety from dubious modern scholarship of bare and corroded
evidence?
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal
sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
Of course there were always protests against animal sacrifice, or for
that matter, any kind of obvious waste or degradation. This is only
Newton's Third Law in social practice. The whole business of nastika
revival in the 6th century BC took place as a revulsion against
animal
eating as a resulting of animal slaughter as sacrifice.
Do we know that there were any protests in the 12th century BCE?
Jains and Buddhists didn't always exist.
Neither did the human race on this planet, if we go by fossil record.
Buddhists got prominence from around 200 BC, but the totally
non-violent Jains were around as long as Brahmins were around.
Mahavira was only the last of their several Tirthankars (guide,
pathfinder).
.... according to their traditional history, but we don't know that it
is accuarate. Be that as it may, even if they have been around for as
long as Brahmins, do we know that there were protests against animal
sacrifice before there were Brahmins?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 08:21:07 PM |
|
|
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1110842083.315068.304220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
4,000 years back, just about wherever you looked, you could
find
polytheistic societies* engaged in bloody sacrifices of
animals**.
AB: They still do bloody sacrifices of animals. There always
was
a strong protest made to the bloody sacrifices of animals.
Always, eh? In preChristian Egypt, for which records exist,
Did they have all records for everything? Can we judge a society
in
its entirety from dubious modern scholarship of bare and corroded
evidence?
You're the one who are judging them (as protestors of animal
sacrifice)
without having any evidence that they did protest animal sacrifice.
Of course there were always protests against animal sacrifice, or for
that matter, any kind of obvious waste or degradation. This is only
Newton's Third Law in social practice. The whole business of nastika
revival in the 6th century BC took place as a revulsion against
animal
eating as a resulting of animal slaughter as sacrifice.
Do we know that there were any protests in the 12th century BCE?
Long before, actually. Around 3000 BC Lord Krishna pointed out to
Arjuna who his most ardent follower was. It was, alas, not Arjuna but
a common man who ate fruit that fell from trees. However he carried a
sword. When asked why, for he evidently did not believe in sacrifice
being so non-violent a person, who had never harmed anyone with it, he
replied that the sword was for fighting Arjuna who had the audacity to
use Lord Krishna as his charioteer (that is to say, Arjuna had put
Lord Krishna in a inferior position, and that had to be avenged).
In days long gone by (in Satya-Yuga, when people where 100% good -
these days they are 25% good) animal sacrifices did not happen. In
later times, when people became worse and fought each other for
various petty reasons, the necessity for the moral to become also
bloody-minded at times led to animal sacrifice. When everyone becomes
good and also strong and wise, animal sacrifice will not be necessary.
Jains and Buddhists didn't always exist.
Neither did the human race on this planet, if we go by fossil record.
Buddhists got prominence from around 200 BC, but the totally
non-violent Jains were around as long as Brahmins were around.
Mahavira was only the last of their several Tirthankars (guide,
pathfinder).
... according to their traditional history, but we don't know that it
is accuarate.
Those who truly follow traditional history, have no doubts about the
authenticity of their accounts. They know how to interpret them
properly, and for what purpose, under which contexts, for their
meanings.
Be that as it may, even if they have been around for as
long as Brahmins, do we know that there were protests against animal
sacrifice before there were Brahmins?
Yes, certainly. When we migrated to Australia in 1989, we saw a sign
scrawled on the shelter at the bus stop "Don't Eat Meat". So, quite
independently of Brahmins (I'll bet 99.99% Australians do not have any
clue of Hinduism - just like you and they others here - and they have
not even heard about this strange thing named Brahmin) there can be
protests against animal sacrifice, simply following one's natural
sense of right and wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 09:01:03 PM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Those who truly follow traditional history, have no doubts about the
authenticity of their accounts. They know how to interpret them
properly, and for what purpose, under which contexts, for their
meanings.
Of course. That still doesn't make them accurate.
Be that as it may, even if they have been around for as
long as Brahmins, do we know that there were protests against
animal
sacrifice before there were Brahmins?
Yes, certainly. When we migrated to Australia in 1989, we saw a sign
scrawled on the shelter at the bus stop "Don't Eat Meat".
Were aborigines asking other aborigines not to eat meat 4000 years
back? How can you know that there were always protests against meat?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
15 Mar 2005 04:30:05 PM |
|
|
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1110855663.822714.10490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Those who truly follow traditional history, have no doubts about the
authenticity of their accounts. They know how to interpret them
properly, and for what purpose, under which contexts, for their
meanings.
Of course. That still doesn't make them accurate.
If they get satisfaction, then so far as they are concerned, it is
more and better than accurate. Accuracy is only a means to such an
end. It is a technical term, defined in terms of tolerances.
Be that as it may, even if they have been around for as
long as Brahmins, do we know that there were protests against
animal
sacrifice before there were Brahmins?
Yes, certainly. When we migrated to Australia in 1989, we saw a sign
scrawled on the shelter at the bus stop "Don't Eat Meat".
Were aborigines asking other aborigines not to eat meat 4000 years
back?
I don't know, as theirs was an oral-aural tradition. I have not found
any sanction against killing animals and meat-eating in their
tradition, the way Jain tradition has been, and is.
As hunter-gatherers, they had to eat whatever they could get. Maybe,
some aborigines did not like killing animals so much, and were more
interested in gathering. Such stone age people possibly took the lead
in cultivation of crops, in other lands than Australia. Vegetarianism
could take off only after an agricultural society got firmly
established. In India, agricultural systems existed many many
thousands of years ago - and these systems are the basic source of all
Indian culture.
Some stone age people were cannibals and some others were not - now
this is well known. The same way, one lot could be entirely for
meat-eating, and some others against in principle. Even in today's
firstworld, there is a small minority of vegans that is dead against
all forms of animal exploitation.
How can you know that there were always protests against meat?
I have given many examples. If you chose to ignore them, what can I
say? To me, it seems an essential and inevitable part of human
nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
15 Mar 2005 04:48:50 PM |
|
|
In article <890e65ea.0503151430.1370763@posting.google.com>,
(Arindam Banerjee) posted:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1110855663.822714.10490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
"ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Those who truly follow traditional history, have no doubts about the
authenticity of their accounts. They know how to interpret them
properly, and for what purpose, under which contexts, for their
meanings.
Of course. That still doesn't make them accurate.
If they get satisfaction, then so far as they are concerned, it is
more and better than accurate. Accuracy is only a means to such an
end. It is a technical term, defined in terms of tolerances.
Be that as it may, even if they have been around for as
long as Brahmins, do we know that there were protests against
animal
sacrifice before there were Brahmins?
Yes, certainly. When we migrated to Australia in 1989, we saw a sign
scrawled on the shelter at the bus stop "Don't Eat Meat".
Were aborigines asking other aborigines not to eat meat 4000 years
back?
I don't know, as theirs was an oral-aural tradition. I have not found
any sanction against killing animals and meat-eating in their
tradition, the way Jain tradition has been, and is.
As hunter-gatherers, they had to eat whatever they could get. Maybe,
some aborigines did not like killing animals so much, and were more
interested in gathering. Such stone age people possibly took the lead
in cultivation of crops, in other lands than Australia. Vegetarianism
could take off only after an agricultural society got firmly
established. In India, agricultural systems existed many many
thousands of years ago - and these systems are the basic source of all
Indian culture.
Some stone age people were cannibals and some others were not - now
this is well known. The same way, one lot could be entirely for
meat-eating, and some others against in principle. Even in today's
firstworld, there is a small minority of vegans that is dead against
all forms of animal exploitation.
How can you know that there were always protests against meat?
I have given many examples. If you chose to ignore them, what can I
say? To me, it seems an essential and inevitable part of human
nature.
WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Besides being an expression of compassion
for animals, vegetarianism is followed for
ecological and health rationales
REASONS
In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters --
Hindus and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision
to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are
five major motivations for such a decision:
1. The Dharmic Law Reason
Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first
duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
2. The Karmic Consequences Reason
All of our actions, including our choice of food,
have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the
cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even
indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the
future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
3. The Spiritual Reason
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what
we ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and
experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher
consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl
or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal
foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger,
jealousy, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of
death, all of which are locked into the the flesh of the
butchered creatures. For these reasons, vegetarians live
in higher consciousness and meat-eaters abide in lower
consciousness.
4. The Health Reason
Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is
easier to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients
and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body.
Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major
diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus
live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have
fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the
doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills.
Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer,
more refined and skin more beautiful.
5. The Ecological Reason
Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss
of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the
single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that
we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a
dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary
ecology as the decision not to eat meat.
HISTORY
The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
later the British. With them came the desire to be
'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a
meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
"That vegetarianism has always been widespread in
India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was
observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by
Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth
century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic
copies of the scriptures.
"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the
flesh of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI
declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds
of meat,' for such eating involves killing and and leads
to Karmic bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic
literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja
Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-
killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth
[Shrimad Bhagvatam 10.1.4].'"
SCRIPTURE
He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating
the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever
species he may take his birth.
MAHABHARAT 115.47
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8
The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV
262.47
The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by
his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its
taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and
killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of
killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts
off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells
or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be
considered meat-eaters. MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same
in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --
he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in
himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not
himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the
highest path. BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28
Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best
Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41
What is the good way? It is the path that reflects
on how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324
All that lives will press palms together in
prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and
savor meat. TIRUKURAL 260
What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting
life, for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL
312, 321
Goodness is never one with the minds of these two:
one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a
creature's flesh. TIRUKURAL 253
Copyright (C) 1993, Himalayan Academy, All Rights
Reserved. The information contained in this news report
may not be republished in any form without the prior
written authority of Himalayan Academy.
This is an authorized reproduction.
Jai Maharaj
Born in a Hindu family in Bharat, and a vegetarian since birth
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
10 Mar 2005 11:16:31 PM |
|
|
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that Einstein
was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting yourself in
the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
10 Mar 2005 11:41:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:16:31 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that Einstein
was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting yourself in
the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
What credibility?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
11 Mar 2005 12:46:42 AM |
|
|
On 10 Mar 2005, Christopher A. Lee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:16:31 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that
Einstein was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting
yourself in the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
What credibility?
The one he blew.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
11 Mar 2005 07:15:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:46:42 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Christopher A. Lee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:16:31 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that
Einstein was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting
yourself in the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
What credibility?
The one he blew.
He ever had some?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
11 Mar 2005 01:59:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:46:42 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Christopher A. Lee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:16:31 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that
Einstein was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting
yourself in the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
What credibility?
The one he blew.
His dog's name is Credibility?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 06:59:30 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9615D8AB18903vicman@216.196.97.136>...
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that Einstein
was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting yourself in
the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
Can anyone follow the meaning of a sentence, around here?
First I write:
"Einstein was not an atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Russell".
This means that he was lower than a hardcore atheist, and so - as a
logical conseqence - could sound like a theist at times.
Then I write:
"Einstein does not sound like an atheist." Meaning, that he sounds
like a theist.
Where is the contradiction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sacrifices, past and present |
14 Mar 2005 08:06:13 AM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2005 04:59:30 -0800, (Arindam Banerjee)
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9615D8AB18903vicman@216.196.97.136>...
On 10 Mar 2005, Arindam Banerjee dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
AB: I do not indicate anything of that kind, for Einstein was not an
atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Bertrand Russell.
to find out what he thought
of God. Einstein replied, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one but rather than be
billed
as a professional atheist, I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
AB: Einstein does not sound like an atheist.
Wait a minute, Sparky. Didn't you just say with conviction that Einstein
was not an atheist? Please do try to keep from contradicting yourself in
the same post, it tends to blow your credibility.
Can anyone follow the meaning of a sentence, around here?
First I write:
"Einstein was not an atheist, like the arrogant and shallow Russell".
This means that he was lower than a hardcore atheist, and so - as a
logical conseqence - could sound like a theist at times.
What "arrogant and shallow Russell", liar?
He was effectively atheist. He said that IF (do you know what that
word means?) he had anything in him that could be considered religious
it was his awe for the wonders of the universe.
And that IF he had a god it was Spinoza's - which was a metaphor for
the universe.
Then I write:
"Einstein does not sound like an atheist." Meaning, that he sounds
like a theist.
Except that he wasn't any kind of theist that a theist would
recognise.
Cosmologists, physicists etc often use the word "God" as a combination
of shorthand and in-joke. Hard-of-thinking theists imagine this means
they are talking about the theists' god and that they are therefore
theist.
Where is the contradiction?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
