[Assam] Beef eating; Much ado over nothing

[Ram Sarangapani]

>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.

Really, C'da? Thats news to me. The very reason I got into the fray was
because some (few) netters are always gung-ho on bashing Hinduism, but are
totally blind to the deficiencies of other religions. I am sure they get a
kick out of it.

If an atheist would come up and say "I don't believe in God etc" I have
absolutely no problem - I would even undersand the position and respect it.
But what I am seeing is with this beef-eating thing is as if  eating beef is
the best thing after forks were invented.
If one has to bash religions on such aspects (and then pretend one is an
atheist), one has to tread carefully - don't you think?

I think Hinduism like every other religion has dogmas, and nuances, it has
its faults and its ups and downs. But, just because we live in the Phoren,
we cannot just suddenly find Christianity and other religions more palatable
than Hinduism and suddenly realize wow "hinduism is full of holes and I
ought to switch to the next more 'acceptable religion' ".

Even a critic ought to maintain standards of fairness:-)

>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.

Not logical. The good-fer-nothin bamun would not have ventured into
hardworking, backbreaking agriculture. Remember, the bamuns of yore had only
to beg for alms (or property) to get by. Why do the hard work, when the
farmers could do it. It could well be that the Bamuns were the ones to
devise the beef-ban.

>the BJP or its support base, the VHP and RSS, justify attempting >to
legislate beef-eating prohibition while

They do not form the mainstream, next-door Hindu. This is like saying Pat
Robertson or Jerry Falwell  is the leader/thinker of Christianity.

--Ram




On 6/20/06, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>   >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* <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/20060620/800717be/attachment.htm>