Modi will develop India into a Hindu state: Goa minister

[abjktu]

LOL....if Hinduism spoke only of ahimsa then Mahabharata war would never have taken place. There is a book called the Bhagwat Gita where Lord Krishna talks about Himsa. You might want to read that.

i have seen mahabharatham,puranam,ramayanam in many book stores..but not a single copy of bhagavathgeetha yet..

 

[Indrani]

but in this modern times,no one uses a bull for ploughing fields or pulling a cart..if you want maximum yield,i say use tractors..
milk..goat and buffalos also gives milk and both have high nutritional values than cows..
cow dung...chicken manure has high NPK value than cow dung..

No unless you see that tractor needs petrol. Fertilizer needs natural gas and oil. To produce these and control these there are wars happening. Killing millions. You cows and buffaloes never caused so much killing.

Goats and buffaloes are no comparison to cows, but still must be spared as much as possible.

Likewise chicken. It would be great if you would go vegetarian and not eat meat at all. Otherwise you may as well go full hog and eat up your mother and father too.

 

[amitkriit]

i have seen mahabharatham,puranam,ramayanam in many book stores..but not a single copy of bhagavathgeetha yet..

Shrimad Bhagwad Gita is a part of Mahabharat. Which practising Hindu doesn't know this?

 

[abjktu]

Fool.



Yo most of our Gods and Goddess have killed. Ahimsa is not non-violence but non-torture. Learn the meaning of words you use, bozo.

Ahimsa in Malayalam means non violence..
Ahimsa in Kannada means non torture??..himse means torture??

 

[Makaramarma]

No it does not. I am not talking about sustaining life in the sense of just a day or two, but in the sense of preservation of life till eternity.

You start eating humans, results in wars, distrust, destruction killing life on this planet. So it is adharma.

You start disrespecting and being cruel to your parents, folks stop having children. Life vanishes. So it is adharma.

Dharma is not a set thing. It varies per the context. That which is virtuous and life sustaining is dharma.

Abrahamic religion followers in general cannot follow dharma because they are not a duty based philosophy. They are a rights based philosophy. The question they ask is what can I get, not what I can do or give. That is the difference.

I was only giving the example to make my limited point. You don't have to tell me eating humans is adharma.

However Dharma is not a variable and is not based on context. It is as set as the laws of Gravity.

Rta defines the immutable cosmic laws, Dharma is the path of least resistance in observing that law. It is the path that gives you the greatest returns in the shortest possible time.

I leave it to the Abrahamic follower to decide to follow dharma or not. As I have mentioned earlier that might make them a poor christian or a poor muslims. Not much worse than the multitudes of poor Hindus.

i have seen mahabharatham,puranam,ramayanam in many book stores..but not a single copy of bhagavathgeetha yet..

hmm....I guess you need to look harder. Google might help ?

 

[abjktu]

Shrimad Bhagwad Gita is a part of Mahabharat. Which practising Hindu doesn't know this?

but mostly it comes as a separate book..

 

[abjktu]

No unless you see that tractor needs petrol. Fertilizer needs natural gas and oil. To produce these and control these there are wars happening. Killing millions. You cows and buffaloes never caused so much killing.

Goats and buffaloes are no comparison to cows, but still must be spared as much as possible.

Likewise chicken. It would be great if you would go vegetarian and not eat meat at all. Otherwise you may as well go full hog and eat up your mother and father too.

My only objection is with banning buffalo slaughter in the name of dharma..otherwise i have no problem in banning cows meat..i do accept that killing cows may have hurts majority Hindus feeling(though many eats cows meat)..

 

[That Guy]

Your logic is flawed. Muslims saying Islam is not a religion is not supported by evidence, whereas Hindus saying it is not a religion is supported by evidence. Hinduism having a set of belief systems is like saying the universe is both real and unreal. Gods exist and do not exist. For every set of belief that you will say belongs Hinduism, there are a set of beliefs which contradict that which also belongs to Hinduism.

People claim anything anywhere anytime, but still there is such a thing as facts.

My logic is sound actually, and your example makes little sense.

First of all, I said many Muslims say that Islam isn't a religion, but a way of life. To them Islam governs every aspect of their life, so technically, it is true. I have family that believe this, so to say that it isn't supported by evidence is a far stretch of an opinion on your ppart.

Saying Hinduism has a set of beliefs is a fact, it has gods, it has laws that govern how one should act, it has temples and priests. To deny this is to deny fact.

You can claim whatever you want, but to most non-Hindus, Hinduism is a religion.

That's not much of a point. Being Muslim requires you to have a particular & only that view to qualify as one. Hinduism can be seen as being unconcerned about particular religious practices simply because it makes no claim for either the superiority of a particular belief system nor does it reject other belief systems. In fact, it bases itself on the premise that there are many paths available.

Perhaps, but when you have a set of gods, and lore based upon said deities, then you cannot claim to be anything other than a religion.

 

[Bang Galore]

Perhaps, but when you have a set of gods, and lore based upon said deities, then you cannot claim to be anything other than a religion.

Except that the set of gods and stories connected are but only a part of the "religion" and belief in them is neither compulsory nor essential.

Btw, I'm not one who suggests that Hinduism is definitely only " a way of life", I am sure that most who follow it see it primarily as a religion. The only point worth making is that it can be conceivably argued as such.