'2mn cows smuggled from India every year'

[janon]

As much as a founding principle as Hinduism can have. In his commentary on the Yoga Sutras, sage Vyasa defines ahimsa as "the absence of injuriousness (anabhidroha) toward all living beings (sarvabhuta) in all respects (sarvatha) and for all times (sarvada)."
So do not go around bullshitting that vegetarianism was taken from Jainism and Buddhism.

Sigh.

Are you aware that "Vyasa" is not a person, but a title? And that the notions of ahimsa evolved through the centuries, and that Buddhism and Jainism influenced these thoughts?

Vegetarianism was not "taken" from Buddhism or Jainism - it was a cultural practice that spread with the spread of those religions. That is why Rishis in the Rig Veda were meat eaters, but Brahmins today are not supposed to be.

 

[Indrani]

I don't want to offend Indians, but many of our most delicious dishes are beef based and we can't simply stop eating beef. Is there a way we can import cows legally without hurting the feelings of devout Hindus? After all, we're the ones committing the sin - Indians are simply transferring ownership.

No import your cows from Brazil or Australia.

 

[janon]

No animals are more equal than others. All life is sacred. We only make the differentiation based on what is most useful to sustain life on earth. In that the cow due to its domestic nature and its use to humans as a farm animal as well as a milk giver must be accorded the gratitude that one cannot a deer. Yeah sure if your deer is plowing the land for you, lugging your cart, and giving you milk, I hope you will repay its hard work by at least not killing it. That is the minimum that human must give back to the animal which helped him so long.

A donkey does all that, a buffalo probably does it better than a cow. Let's be honest here - you are working from the conclusion to the premise. You want to support the cow-worship that some hindus do, and you want to make a logical case for it. It's not like you started out with facts and reached the conclusion that cows are sacred. If hindu society revered crocodiles, you would be making all sorts of arguments for that.

BTW, each individual can decide whether a cow is more useful to him as food or as beast of burden. If I find more value in hamburgers than a cow to pull my cart, then I will eathamburgers. You don't have to tell me what is more useful to me. That's how market economy works.

 

[Indrani]

Sigh.
Are you aware that "Vyasa" is not a person, but a title? And that the notions of ahimsa evolved through the centuries, and that Buddhism and Jainism influenced these thoughts?
Vegetarianism was not "taken" from Buddhism or Jainism - it was a cultural practice that spread with the spread of those religions. That is why Rishis in the Rig Veda were meat eaters, but Brahmins today are not supposed to be.

Enough of your bullshit. Ved Vyasa now is not a person but a title? Did you go to the missionary school and learn to lie without batting a lid there? Earlier you lied saying Hinduism had nothing to do with vegetarianism, but now you are saying it was a cultural practice. Where did that culture come from? Or Hinduism is separate from the cultural practices of this land?

It was Buddhism and Jainism that advocated and spread vegetarianism in the Indian subcontinent, not hinduism.

 

[Indischer]

Humans have had that choice only very recently, after the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years back. It is because of the modern lifestyle, and the overproduction of food, that we can choose to subsist on foodgrains alone. But for hundreds of thousands of years before that, we had no choice but to be hunter gatherers. Our ancestors did not have supermarkets to buy grain from, or even farms to cultivate grain - even that requires reasonably large societies.

So sentience itself did not present such a choice to us - our ancestors 25000 years back in the ice age were as sentient as us. It is only the climatic conditions and social structures of the post neolithic age that affords that choice.

Not entirely sure about the highlighted sentence. Our ancestors 25000 years may not even have developed a language, and writing systems surely aren't as old. Their knowledge about the World around them would also be painfully limited. They were also unlikely to empathize with animals like we do today. So in a way, their sentience about themselves and the World around them would be nowhere close to modern levels.

And vegetarian food would still be plentiful along the tropical and subtropical regions even during the ice age. I guess berries, fruits and a few vegetables would have been known to local tribes.

 

[Maira La]

Good point! Especially when all Hindus are destined to HELL-FIRE, no matter what they do.

Not all man. Pro-beef Hindus like you shall be pardoned. ;p

 

[Indrani]

A donkey does all that, a buffalo probably does it better than a cow. Let's be honest here - you are working from the conclusion to the premise. You want to support the cow-worship that some hindus do, and you want to make a logical case for it. It's not like you started out with facts and reached the conclusion that cows are sacred. If hindu society revered crocodiles, you would be making all sorts of arguments for that.
BTW, each individual can decide whether a cow is more useful to him as food or as beast of burden. If I find more value in hamburgers than a cow to pull my cart, then I will eathamburgers. You don't have to tell me what is more useful to me. That's how market economy works.

No a donkey does not do all that. Even then there are hardly any people eating donkey meat. I am not working from any conclusion to the premise. Instead it is you who has imbibed psychopathic tendencies in your worship of West and have no human quality of gratitude left in you. There is enough evidence of the harm we have done to the environment by blindly following materialism without a thought for the planet and you see the results from soil erosion to what not.

Each individual cannot decide on this because this is a matter which affects all of us. Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier, like saying let each individual decided how whether to protect the forest or not. We do not have to collectively take any decision. Let each individual take a decision whether to set fire to the village or not.

No market economy does not work on the principles of chaos. There are rules and regulations and there are no go areas. If you want a no rule society, go and live on a desert island.

 

[janon]

Enough of your bullshit. Ved Vyasa now is not a person but a title? Did you go to the missionary school and learn to lie without batting a lid there? Earlier you lied saying Hinduism had nothing to do with vegetarianism, but now you are saying it was a cultural practice. Where did that culture come from? Or Hinduism is separate from the cultural practices of this land?

I did not say hinduism had nothing to do with vegetarianism - I said that the practice originated due to Buddhism and Jainism, and hinduism later incoporated those practices.

About Vyasa - it is amusing how people with the least amount of knowledge assume the role of defenders of the subject and lecture people who clearly know a lot more than they do. The best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Yes, Vyasa was a title. There have been many Vyasas, including Krishna Dwaipayana who wrote the Mahabharata. Just referencing the times of various works attributed to Vyasa will tell you that it was not one person. Here is an explanation from a non missionary:

Veda Vyasa - BHARATIPRIYA, Litent - Google Books

Anyway I am not interested in teaching the ignorant who don't even have the humility to learn, and instead try to teach more informed people. Besides, since you have devolved into your standard practice of namecalling and personal attacks, this is the right time for me to leave you alone. I sincerely hope you are not 20 yet. If you are, well it's a pity.

My parting gift to you:

 

[Indischer]

No one worships Yama. His vehicle is the very carrier of death and can be put to death. Giver of life is different than giver of death. Only in your world may be death is far more important than life or perhaps both are equal.

The argument still holds, Nepal does not have much land for agriculture, on animals they must depend for survival.

Yama was indeed worshipped in historical times. He's a prominent deity in the RgVeda. And killing his vehicle does not stop death, does it?

Besides, what does one who believes in reincarnation have to worry or fear about death? Just the beginning of a new cycle, perhaps?

 

[Maira La]

No import your cows from Brazil or Australia.

Too expensive. Besides, Indians beef is the best!

 

[mujhaidind]

There is reason why people say 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus. It's because beef makes you strong and courageous.

 

[Maira La]

Yes ... these pagans should accept Islam. Not fall prey to RSS chaddis.

You really hate Muslims, dont' you!

 

[janon]

Not entirely sure about the highlighted sentence. Our ancestors 25000 years may not even have developed a language, and writing systems surely aren't as old. Their knowledge about the World around them would also be painfully limited. They were also unlikely to empathize with animals like we do today. So in a way, their sentience about themselves and the World around them would be nowhere close to modern levels.

And vegetarian food would still be plentiful along the tropical and subtropical regions even during the ice age. I guess berries, fruits and a few vegetables would have been known to local tribes.

Well, make it 15,000 years then. Biologically they were the same as us. But as you say, they knew very little, did not have writing systems, did not have large societies that could produce food for all. And that is why they probably did not empathize with animals, not due to a biological lack of sentience.

 

[Maira La]

There is reason why people say 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus. It's because beef makes you strong and courageous.

False flag.

 

[Indrani]

Humans have had that choice only very recently, after the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years back. It is because of the modern lifestyle, and the overproduction of food, that we can choose to subsist on foodgrains alone. But for hundreds of thousands of years before that, we had no choice but to be hunter gatherers. Our ancestors did not have supermarkets to buy grain from, or even farms to cultivate grain - even that requires reasonably large societies.
So sentience itself did not present such a choice to us - our ancestors 25000 years back in the ice age were as sentient as us. It is only the climatic conditions and social structures of the post neolithic age that affords that choice.

Sentience made the battle equal between species and eating or being eaten when agriculture was not developed. So the animals had a good chance of survival. Forests and nature thrived. Humans did not hog. With agriculture and invention of modern tools, that choice is irrelevant.