Related to the above. And back on topic.
There's a problem with the following.
indiafacts.co.in/butchers-teach-the-values-of-satya-and-ahimsa/
Again, the disclaimer:
- I'm not and never was a missionary vegetarian. Unlike some others: like PETA types, or Buddhism. E.g. Buddhism, upon converting Japan's monarchy, issued laws to force vegetarianism onto a majority Shinto population, which is a majority non-vegetarian population. Ironically, Buddhism was not originally vegetarian, and there's yet been no foolproof evidence cited by Buddhists themselves - not contradicted by other Buddhists - that Buddha was a vegetarian either.
- Human animals, being omnivores, should only become vegetarian by choice*, not by others' insistence or emotional blackmail. * I make an exception for those claiming heathen continuity whose ancestors/lineage is vegetarian: these should remain vegetarian too else they have forsaken tradition, i.e. are unheathen by their break with an important aspect of their direct ancestors. Pretending to channel/reconstruct the life of ancient non-veg ancestors is just an excuse to still claim they are heathen.
So, onto the problem I have with the above: it confuses shaastras with evolution to make an argument for why eating "lower" animals > "higher" animals. Personally, I have No problem with those who are ancestrally cannibals/headhunting cannibals eating their enemies (some cannibal Polynesians ate missionaries out of revenge - like I would ever object). If human is part of your diet and you have killed human enemies, may as well not waste the protein. And of course: killing humans as a source of food is better than christoislamania killing them because they wouldn't convert.
Cannibalism still exists in PNG or areas of Polynesia, as seen in news from some years back where a German/western tourist was thought by authorities to have ended up in unsaved natives' cannibal stew.
On the matter of cannibalism vs eating other animals. From a most basic POV, people eating another human should not invoke any more sensitivity than people eating another animal: fear/anxiety (and at least eventually pain) were one of the first conscious experiences to evolve, in mobile animals at least. They seem to have evolved for self-preservation: more likely to move away from a predator if you had a nasty feeling (evolutionary fear) about its appearance or if you experienced unpleasant sensations if it had started eating your hind leg.
Many schools of fish are known to experience intense anxiety/fear - and in panic move 'erratically' but just as their predator intends - as seen in documentaries on humpback whales. Earlier, these whales' hunting methods were thought to be rather non-intimidating: they just swallowed the huge schools of fish whole. But with better sensory equipment, it became known that when hunting these whales emit sounds we can't hear with our normal ear, and which sounds send their prey into frenzies of fear. <- IIRC Biologists/natural historians used *that* word.
More recently, major scientists have come out in support of fish' sensory perceptions of pain too, arguing that humans must not discriminate against fish (as we have so long done) by pretending they are neutral to their fate at predators' hands (including us), but that we must start including fish in our concerns for the welfare of other species. I don't think these scientists were trying to make the world vegetarian or denouncing fishing, I think they wanted to raise awareness of fish as being highly sensitive to difficult experiences and that we should not treat them cruelly just because we imagine they can take it (whereas many humans won't exercise the same levels of cruelty on many mammals).
So fish feel fear, anxiety, pain. Even scientists today have not merely confirmed this but have argued that humans must have greater regard based on this supposed 'revelation'. Our ancient ancestors were some type of fish creatures also, like that of other vertebrates. So these difficult sensations - the most difficult sensations in life - are shared by a great many species. And fear is seen in invertebrates too (some spiders play dead and these and cockroaches can panic in fear when I catch them in order to throw them out). This is why I would as soon start eating another human as to consciously eat some other species of animal (though Radha argued from some "dharma" POV, which was never my argument, unless she's wishing to equate it to some universal sense of sympathetic 'righteous' behaviour, closer to the reasoning of that Hellene - was it Seneca?* - rather than apparently shastraic orderings. *Yes, here.)
And it is precisely for considerations of freedom from pain, anxiety and fear - and above all: the right to be left alone to live one's life to natural completion, as argued by some ancient Hellenes - that anyone who is a vegetarian should be vegetarian. No other reason is lasting or meaningful. And in this context, bringing in what is dharma as per the shaastras or not, or what the scale of right or wrong is in eating various species as per the shaastras is beyond the topic, though Radha specifically wanted to tie her wishes onto dharma.
If people want to argue for vegetarianism they can only ever do it sensibly from the grounds of fellow feeling and an unwillingness to inflict injury or to take away from another's chance at a complete life (as far as human abstaining can secure this). But it is exactly from the grounds of fellow feeling that we cannot condemn other heathens for continuing to eat non-vegetarian foods or to continue to sacrifice these foods to their Gods first: because man is an animal. And vegetarianism can never be guaranteed to protect other animals if it is not a personal, conscious choice.
There is a remarkable heathen insight by the Hellenes at ysee.gr, who think that continuing animal sacrifices in the west - where there is a clinical mass-breeding and mass-slaughtering of animals as commodities - can't be justified in their continuation of their heathenism in the modern time:
ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#36
C.f. in India/Nepal, heathens from villages still raise their own animals for food (a.o.t. the invisible mechanical processing of animals far away from the public, like the nazi slaughtering of the Jews in 'gas chambers' - which nazis argued were supposedly more civilised but which are actually the extreme of cruelty and inhumanity and show the callousness of nazis to human life).
Non-vegetarian Hindoo heathens always offer all their food to the Gods (though not at those temples where the deity accepts only vegetarian offerings). So how is this unHindu, if such Hindus are going to eat meat anyway?
Even the much-maligned Gadhimai (sp?) festival in Nepal where an article mentioned some 2 lakhs of animals are sacrificed once in 5 years and presumably distributed among many partakers, is IIRC to be eaten by these numerous Hindoos thereafter. Non-vegetarian humans would have eaten this large a number of animals anyway, as I doubt the animals' bodies would be left to go to waste: heathens are not wasteful.
So what is wrong in first offering it to the Gods?
[quote name='Bodhi' date='06 October 2006 - 03:56 AM' timestamp='1160086738' post='58621']
So, whats the point?
Point is, if one is passionate about certain ethical code or ideology (here vegetarian ethics), and wants to see that this ideology progresses in the world, it is far from sufficient to just raise one's children in those ethics. The way influences are there in our world, next generations of veggie parents may take to the conflicting ideology. It may be fine too for some parents. But, at the same time, one has all the right to do all one can, to explain why one is following the ideology one is following. And I see nothing wrong in influencing and encouraging others in joining in - through ethical, legal, acceptable, moral means of course. This is different from "conversion" as you have put it, since there is no involvement of falsehood, coercion, force, ambition, organized-church-like body or commercial interests. This is just making a thought popular.
Also you should observe, non-vegetarianism is NOT an ideology, while vegetarianism actually is, from times forgotten! So you may say vegetarianism is NOT conflicting or offending any particular ideology. It is only negating the habits and practices. Situation is somewhat similar to the difference between Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006.
I hope I was able to convey what I think.
[/quote](Actually, in all but 3 respects - one of which needn't count - 'Jishnu' eerily comes across like the above person, though not in the above's argument of missionising vegetarianism, obviously. In any case, the Indra/Vishnu namesake certainly sounds like the comments by one 'shaastra sevaka' once seen at VV.)
Anyway:
1. I personally don't agree with the above insistence on missionising vegetarianism - which is shown (in the above) to derive from feeling "passionate" about this "ideology (vegetarian ethics)" = zeal -> peddling -> missionising.
It's one thing to present the reasoning for vegetarianism and another to enforce it*, nothing will be gained by enforcing it (and emotional/moral blackmail - seen in the extreme case with PETA types - is enforcing IMO). But once the [sole] argument for vegetarianism is presented - and most are already aware today - should stop there. The only worthwhile argument is that of the Hellene Seneca et al: can leave it at explaining their well-articulated view of animals deserving to live their lives unencumbered by anxiety, fear, pain, premature death/loss caused by humans; that we need not add to the burdens of other animals, especially since -in the 1st world- man's relationship with animals has become unequal in the extreme.
More than ^that^ we cannot (as in: ought not) do to other non-vegetarian heathens, as these are not cruel - who harbour neither a hate nor a callousness/indifference to animals - but nevertheless have their own diet which they have naturally evolved over a great many generations. It may be that some day they too will "self-sanskritize" - as anti-Hindoos have dubbed this process - like many other Hindoos have done. And the fact that others have done it by choice is the only thing that matters, rather than external wrangling.
* Doubly wrong to enforce it in another country, on a population of a distinct heathenism, as seen in how a converted-Buddhist rule famously enforced vegetarianism on a mostly-Shinto population in Japan, by decreeing that the nation should henceforth become vegetarian, all in order to uphold the alien Bauddha dharma and its sudden (but not originally) precept of vegetarianism.
2. Also disagree with the statement "Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006." [Reminiscent of that so-called "OBC" Parishad in Maharashtra doing "Ghar Wapsi" of Hindus into Buddhism, end 2014, which declared that 'India used to be a Buddhist country' (in what parallel universe was that?) and that the recently-invented "OBCs" were originally Buddhist, and that there was never such a thing as Hinduism=Vedic religion=Sanatana Dharma=Hindoo heathenism. Many ethnically-Indian Buddhists pretend that Indians had no religion before Buddhism (the same is attempted by Buddhism now regarding Tibetan Bon by denying that Bon is pre-Buddhist, heathen and distinct from Buddhism, and by launching the "Bon is a spin-off from Buddhism" missionary lie. Buddhists had even tried to pretend that Taoism derived from Buddhism in order to claim Buddhism's right to Chinese and E Asian populations. Except that the proof is of course the other way. Even the lately invented Zen Buddhism is admitted by scholars to be mostly Taoism, hijacked by Buddhism and with a Buddhist veneer added to it and of course stripped of the Taoist Gods.) Quite like what christianism keeps saying about how there is no Hindu religion and doesn't recognise the pre-christian African religions either. It is part of the modus operandi of missionary religions and their peddlers: to pretend that the target population had nothing before and that therefore no replacement occurs, to make it come across as more legitimate. That is, missionary religions attempt to deny heathenisms to project heathens (or at least the masses of heathen laity) as "empty slates", open season for any missionary religion to claim. They thereby justify this to themselves as a 'missionary right'.]
BTW, India was not without religion 2500 years ago - not an empty vessel waiting for Buddhism to enlighten it. Every pocket was long heathen of the Vedic religion before Buddhism appeared on the scene.* So it was very much conversion, what Buddhism did.
But I forgot, some people insist there's no such thing as "Hindu" (Hindoo heathenism, i.e. a religio) - and no such thing as a Hindoo laity therefore - unless Buddhism and Jainism etc are all equally a part of it/the same.
*E.g. Tai-Ahom - also fellow heathens and who had included the Hindoo pantheon of Gods into theirs - arrived much later into the Hindu subcontinent.
There's a problem with the following.
indiafacts.co.in/butchers-teach-the-values-of-satya-and-ahimsa/
Quote: Jishnu Radha Rajan ââ¬Â¢ 16 days ago
"And while some may think eating a fish or a cow or a dog or a pig cannot be equated with eating a human, my question is why not"
Because they are not equal. Dead matter is not used for ritual offering anyway - for instance pUja/yajana is not done with mud/sand. Offering has to be live and consecrated (so no mRt. jIva such as water, gandha etc can be offered). And offering of plant, animals like goat, then cow, horse, man are all different and consuming/eating them is different too. This is not abrahamic, this is very much a dhArmic view. That all beings are divine does not mean all beings are at the same level of consciousness/evolution or that their consumption is same.
One needs to qualify to teach, with his knowledge of dharma and through exemplary practice of his own dharma. He can very much teach others whose dharma in terms of code of conduct might be entirely different. Expertise in a specific subject is relevant for those who have not known the "one by knowing which everything else is known". In case of dharmavyAdha etc it is not relevant.
Again, the disclaimer:
- I'm not and never was a missionary vegetarian. Unlike some others: like PETA types, or Buddhism. E.g. Buddhism, upon converting Japan's monarchy, issued laws to force vegetarianism onto a majority Shinto population, which is a majority non-vegetarian population. Ironically, Buddhism was not originally vegetarian, and there's yet been no foolproof evidence cited by Buddhists themselves - not contradicted by other Buddhists - that Buddha was a vegetarian either.
- Human animals, being omnivores, should only become vegetarian by choice*, not by others' insistence or emotional blackmail. * I make an exception for those claiming heathen continuity whose ancestors/lineage is vegetarian: these should remain vegetarian too else they have forsaken tradition, i.e. are unheathen by their break with an important aspect of their direct ancestors. Pretending to channel/reconstruct the life of ancient non-veg ancestors is just an excuse to still claim they are heathen.
So, onto the problem I have with the above: it confuses shaastras with evolution to make an argument for why eating "lower" animals > "higher" animals. Personally, I have No problem with those who are ancestrally cannibals/headhunting cannibals eating their enemies (some cannibal Polynesians ate missionaries out of revenge - like I would ever object). If human is part of your diet and you have killed human enemies, may as well not waste the protein. And of course: killing humans as a source of food is better than christoislamania killing them because they wouldn't convert.
Cannibalism still exists in PNG or areas of Polynesia, as seen in news from some years back where a German/western tourist was thought by authorities to have ended up in unsaved natives' cannibal stew.
On the matter of cannibalism vs eating other animals. From a most basic POV, people eating another human should not invoke any more sensitivity than people eating another animal: fear/anxiety (and at least eventually pain) were one of the first conscious experiences to evolve, in mobile animals at least. They seem to have evolved for self-preservation: more likely to move away from a predator if you had a nasty feeling (evolutionary fear) about its appearance or if you experienced unpleasant sensations if it had started eating your hind leg.
Many schools of fish are known to experience intense anxiety/fear - and in panic move 'erratically' but just as their predator intends - as seen in documentaries on humpback whales. Earlier, these whales' hunting methods were thought to be rather non-intimidating: they just swallowed the huge schools of fish whole. But with better sensory equipment, it became known that when hunting these whales emit sounds we can't hear with our normal ear, and which sounds send their prey into frenzies of fear. <- IIRC Biologists/natural historians used *that* word.
More recently, major scientists have come out in support of fish' sensory perceptions of pain too, arguing that humans must not discriminate against fish (as we have so long done) by pretending they are neutral to their fate at predators' hands (including us), but that we must start including fish in our concerns for the welfare of other species. I don't think these scientists were trying to make the world vegetarian or denouncing fishing, I think they wanted to raise awareness of fish as being highly sensitive to difficult experiences and that we should not treat them cruelly just because we imagine they can take it (whereas many humans won't exercise the same levels of cruelty on many mammals).
So fish feel fear, anxiety, pain. Even scientists today have not merely confirmed this but have argued that humans must have greater regard based on this supposed 'revelation'. Our ancient ancestors were some type of fish creatures also, like that of other vertebrates. So these difficult sensations - the most difficult sensations in life - are shared by a great many species. And fear is seen in invertebrates too (some spiders play dead and these and cockroaches can panic in fear when I catch them in order to throw them out). This is why I would as soon start eating another human as to consciously eat some other species of animal (though Radha argued from some "dharma" POV, which was never my argument, unless she's wishing to equate it to some universal sense of sympathetic 'righteous' behaviour, closer to the reasoning of that Hellene - was it Seneca?* - rather than apparently shastraic orderings. *Yes, here.)
And it is precisely for considerations of freedom from pain, anxiety and fear - and above all: the right to be left alone to live one's life to natural completion, as argued by some ancient Hellenes - that anyone who is a vegetarian should be vegetarian. No other reason is lasting or meaningful. And in this context, bringing in what is dharma as per the shaastras or not, or what the scale of right or wrong is in eating various species as per the shaastras is beyond the topic, though Radha specifically wanted to tie her wishes onto dharma.
If people want to argue for vegetarianism they can only ever do it sensibly from the grounds of fellow feeling and an unwillingness to inflict injury or to take away from another's chance at a complete life (as far as human abstaining can secure this). But it is exactly from the grounds of fellow feeling that we cannot condemn other heathens for continuing to eat non-vegetarian foods or to continue to sacrifice these foods to their Gods first: because man is an animal. And vegetarianism can never be guaranteed to protect other animals if it is not a personal, conscious choice.
There is a remarkable heathen insight by the Hellenes at ysee.gr, who think that continuing animal sacrifices in the west - where there is a clinical mass-breeding and mass-slaughtering of animals as commodities - can't be justified in their continuation of their heathenism in the modern time:
ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#36
Quote:Do you perform blood sacrifices?Very well argued/explained, like true heathens.
There are two types of sacrifices, those involving the letting of blood (i.e., the slaughter of an animal that is later eaten during the festive meal) and blood-less ones. Both are equally sacred. However today, the sacredness of the former is not easily appreciated, because humanity has distanced itself from nature and consumes meat slaughtered savagely with mechanical devices, bought in supermarkets and packaged in plastic. This is why we only persist with the practice of blood-less sacrifice.
The 'accusation' made by Christians regarding blood sacrifice is dishonest and hypocritical. It is simply made to defame us to those who don't know a lot about Ethnic religions. The Christians, who non-sacrificially slaughter millions of sheep and turkeys during their own celebrations, have few problems with their conscience.
C.f. in India/Nepal, heathens from villages still raise their own animals for food (a.o.t. the invisible mechanical processing of animals far away from the public, like the nazi slaughtering of the Jews in 'gas chambers' - which nazis argued were supposedly more civilised but which are actually the extreme of cruelty and inhumanity and show the callousness of nazis to human life).
Non-vegetarian Hindoo heathens always offer all their food to the Gods (though not at those temples where the deity accepts only vegetarian offerings). So how is this unHindu, if such Hindus are going to eat meat anyway?
Even the much-maligned Gadhimai (sp?) festival in Nepal where an article mentioned some 2 lakhs of animals are sacrificed once in 5 years and presumably distributed among many partakers, is IIRC to be eaten by these numerous Hindoos thereafter. Non-vegetarian humans would have eaten this large a number of animals anyway, as I doubt the animals' bodies would be left to go to waste: heathens are not wasteful.
So what is wrong in first offering it to the Gods?
[quote name='Bodhi' date='06 October 2006 - 03:56 AM' timestamp='1160086738' post='58621']
So, whats the point?
Point is, if one is passionate about certain ethical code or ideology (here vegetarian ethics), and wants to see that this ideology progresses in the world, it is far from sufficient to just raise one's children in those ethics. The way influences are there in our world, next generations of veggie parents may take to the conflicting ideology. It may be fine too for some parents. But, at the same time, one has all the right to do all one can, to explain why one is following the ideology one is following. And I see nothing wrong in influencing and encouraging others in joining in - through ethical, legal, acceptable, moral means of course. This is different from "conversion" as you have put it, since there is no involvement of falsehood, coercion, force, ambition, organized-church-like body or commercial interests. This is just making a thought popular.
Also you should observe, non-vegetarianism is NOT an ideology, while vegetarianism actually is, from times forgotten! So you may say vegetarianism is NOT conflicting or offending any particular ideology. It is only negating the habits and practices. Situation is somewhat similar to the difference between Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006.
I hope I was able to convey what I think.
[/quote](Actually, in all but 3 respects - one of which needn't count - 'Jishnu' eerily comes across like the above person, though not in the above's argument of missionising vegetarianism, obviously. In any case, the Indra/Vishnu namesake certainly sounds like the comments by one 'shaastra sevaka' once seen at VV.)
Anyway:
1. I personally don't agree with the above insistence on missionising vegetarianism - which is shown (in the above) to derive from feeling "passionate" about this "ideology (vegetarian ethics)" = zeal -> peddling -> missionising.
It's one thing to present the reasoning for vegetarianism and another to enforce it*, nothing will be gained by enforcing it (and emotional/moral blackmail - seen in the extreme case with PETA types - is enforcing IMO). But once the [sole] argument for vegetarianism is presented - and most are already aware today - should stop there. The only worthwhile argument is that of the Hellene Seneca et al: can leave it at explaining their well-articulated view of animals deserving to live their lives unencumbered by anxiety, fear, pain, premature death/loss caused by humans; that we need not add to the burdens of other animals, especially since -in the 1st world- man's relationship with animals has become unequal in the extreme.
More than ^that^ we cannot (as in: ought not) do to other non-vegetarian heathens, as these are not cruel - who harbour neither a hate nor a callousness/indifference to animals - but nevertheless have their own diet which they have naturally evolved over a great many generations. It may be that some day they too will "self-sanskritize" - as anti-Hindoos have dubbed this process - like many other Hindoos have done. And the fact that others have done it by choice is the only thing that matters, rather than external wrangling.
* Doubly wrong to enforce it in another country, on a population of a distinct heathenism, as seen in how a converted-Buddhist rule famously enforced vegetarianism on a mostly-Shinto population in Japan, by decreeing that the nation should henceforth become vegetarian, all in order to uphold the alien Bauddha dharma and its sudden (but not originally) precept of vegetarianism.
2. Also disagree with the statement "Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006." [Reminiscent of that so-called "OBC" Parishad in Maharashtra doing "Ghar Wapsi" of Hindus into Buddhism, end 2014, which declared that 'India used to be a Buddhist country' (in what parallel universe was that?) and that the recently-invented "OBCs" were originally Buddhist, and that there was never such a thing as Hinduism=Vedic religion=Sanatana Dharma=Hindoo heathenism. Many ethnically-Indian Buddhists pretend that Indians had no religion before Buddhism (the same is attempted by Buddhism now regarding Tibetan Bon by denying that Bon is pre-Buddhist, heathen and distinct from Buddhism, and by launching the "Bon is a spin-off from Buddhism" missionary lie. Buddhists had even tried to pretend that Taoism derived from Buddhism in order to claim Buddhism's right to Chinese and E Asian populations. Except that the proof is of course the other way. Even the lately invented Zen Buddhism is admitted by scholars to be mostly Taoism, hijacked by Buddhism and with a Buddhist veneer added to it and of course stripped of the Taoist Gods.) Quite like what christianism keeps saying about how there is no Hindu religion and doesn't recognise the pre-christian African religions either. It is part of the modus operandi of missionary religions and their peddlers: to pretend that the target population had nothing before and that therefore no replacement occurs, to make it come across as more legitimate. That is, missionary religions attempt to deny heathenisms to project heathens (or at least the masses of heathen laity) as "empty slates", open season for any missionary religion to claim. They thereby justify this to themselves as a 'missionary right'.]
BTW, India was not without religion 2500 years ago - not an empty vessel waiting for Buddhism to enlighten it. Every pocket was long heathen of the Vedic religion before Buddhism appeared on the scene.* So it was very much conversion, what Buddhism did.
But I forgot, some people insist there's no such thing as "Hindu" (Hindoo heathenism, i.e. a religio) - and no such thing as a Hindoo laity therefore - unless Buddhism and Jainism etc are all equally a part of it/the same.
*E.g. Tai-Ahom - also fellow heathens and who had included the Hindoo pantheon of Gods into theirs - arrived much later into the Hindu subcontinent.