[Assam] Beef eating; Much ado over nothing

[Chan Mahanta]

>But telling farmers not to eat beef with a golden goose theory may 
>not have had >much effect. But if the intellectuals  did encounch 
>this as "God's will", >people would pay heed.


*** Really Ram :-)?

I would venture to suggest otherwise. It was probably the Brahmins 
who, not having to work for a living or grow their own food were the 
ones who probably had to be told that it was not a good idea to eat 
their cows.



*** All the economic rationale that you and others cite are fine. Not 
at all hard to understand. But how does that mesh with the assertion 
that Hinduism is without dogmas, never mind whether you call them 
'religious' or otherwise ?

And what is beef-eating prohibition ( or for that matter pork, or 
chicken, or 'xingi-maas' or what have you) if not a dogma? And how do 
the standard bearers of Hinduttwa , the BJP or its support base, the 
VHP and RSS, justify attempting to legislate beef-eating prohibition 
while, at the same time, go waving that no-dogma-in-Hinduism-we 
accept-everything-and-everyone flag?

BTW, citing others' dogmas don't make Hinduism's disappear. Besides, 
the others at least don't try to insult anyone's intelligence by 
claiming they have none.







At 10:52 AM -0500 6/20/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>  >That is why I was curious about Mohan's explanation that 
>">"But >from a certain point in time we don't eat Beef." and how 
>that jives >with Hinduism not having any dogmas.
>
>The reason, from what I have read in the past and that which seems 
>most plausible, is that beef-eating by Hindus stopped because during 
>times of famine or drought and when farmers had little else, cattle 
>were slaughtered. The cow, however, was the golden goose 
>(ploughing/milk etc), and the intellectuals wanted farmers NOT to 
>kill them and thus rob them of the only salvation to overcome their 
>plights.
>
>But telling farmers not to eat beef with a golden goose theory may 
>not have had much effect. But if the intellectuals  did encounch 
>this as "God's will", people would pay heed.
>
>Over the centuries, this has become more of a religious frevor and 
>thus the holy cow.
>
>Now, lets take other religions: Pigs are banned in Islam. This, I 
>don't think came actually from God, but probably, because pork was a 
>big healh-risk (tape worms etc). The best way to make people avoid 
>eating pork would be to put it in the God context.
>
>There are similar things in Christianity. The hatred for snakes in 
>Christianity - goes all the way from Adam & Eve to St. Patrick 
>killing all the snakes in Ireland.
>
>  >"Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life" was a
>>non-response to the question of what defines Hinduism
>
>OK, then can you tell us what defines Christianity or Islam or even 
>Buddhism? I don't think anyone can.
>
>I believe Hinduism is considered a way of life, because of one 
>single factor - it is not an 'organized religion' nor does it have 
>one person that the faithful can swear by  (Buddha, Mohammad or 
>Christ) - ie no messenger to deliver the celestial message.
>
>--Ram
>
>
>On 6/20/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>  >Sure, C'da. You and Barua could make all the rules, but then it has
>>to >ultimately be followed by the masses, don't you think? :-)
>
>
>*** Hammurabi I ain't Ram. Not into rule making or law-giving. In
>fact I am quite the opposite. I would just as soon tear those laws
>and rules that rob people of freedoms down. Like the rule about
>beef-eating prohibition.
>
>That is why I was curious about Mohan's explanation that ">"But from
>a certain point in time we don't eat Beef." and how that jives with
>Hinduism not having any dogmas.
>
>You did not answer my question either.
>
>Appears to me, in the absence of a better explanation from someone in
>the know, that "Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life" was a
>non-response to the question of what defines Hinduism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 9:22 AM -0500 6/20/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>  >I think Mohan's response seems to be the one that makes a lot of
>>sense. (BTW: Welcome Mohan to the net)
>>
>>C'da, I think the 'Hinduism is a way of life' idea was popularized
>>by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in his book '  A Hindu View of Life'
>>
>>  >"Does it therefore mean that one can make one's own RULES
>>or >ethos, on the fly, to suit one's need on a given day?"
>>
>>Sure, C'da. You and Barua could make all the rules, but then it has
>>to ultimately be followed by the masses, don't you think? :-)
>>
>>--Ram
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060620/f10a838a/attachment.htm>