Talk:Hindus/Archive 1

message: Socailworker Please read below points about dispute.
1.	Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs are NOT Hindus. There is lot of confusion among so-called Hindus i.e. Brahmin-Shudra people about How to define a person as Hindu? . Even if these people give some definition and we tell them many people OR many religions do not fit in their given definitions these people show their Hippocratic mind-set and are not ready exclude others from their confused definition of Hindu. Brahmins and Shudras are Phallus Worshipper for proof you can see the available information on wikipedia i.e. Lingam. We don’t have any objection about Brahmins religious practices. They can worship phallus along with their mothers and sisters because it is holy and religious thing for them. Everybody has right to practice his religion as per his tradition. So our views or our stand is certainly not anti-Hindu. But it is really insulting to include Jain, Buddhist and Sikhs in Hinduism because these are not phallus worshipers. Buddhist does not believe any God. So please remove all references about Jain, Buddhist and Sikh as Hindus from all wikipedia articles.
:True; Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs would not like to be called Hindus. Though I may point out that in many hindu families, one of the son's is ordained a sikh. Such families will defy clear-cut demarcation. Similarly, many Hindus consider Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. You cannot stop them from believing in this way. Also, that many families have the surname Jain but follow Hindu religion. They are reconverts from the Jain community from a time when these religions had not separated. The only way to describe a Hindu is by the person's own description. There is no bar on a person's personal beliefs, including his/her right to an atheistic view. Your coining a new word 'Brahmin-Shudra' in place of 'Hindu' is your own distorted view (BTW, do you have a squint?). The reference to mothers and sisters and phalluses shows your upbringing and the effect of your religious education. It does not merit a reply. The Arbitration committee should note it and discard your messages for being hate messages. Aupmanyav 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? Where is it written that adivasis & dalits are untouchables and not Hindu? Where is it written that a Hindu means belonging to a caste? What about those before Manu's time? Were they not Hindus? Why are you blaming Hinduism itself? I get a feeling that it is you who thinks that these groups must be kept out of the fold of Hinduism. Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the Indian Census 2001, people were asked to indicate the name of their religion (http://www.censusindia.net/census2001/qpopenu.html), the final data is according to their replies. Would you give reasons to doubt the Census of India data and, state which data should be accepted in its place. Indian Census has been held uninterruptedly since 1872 and the 2001 Census was 14th in the series. Indian Census Commission, like the Indian Election Commission, is an empowered body, and is well qualified and experienced for its work. The Indian Constitution and the representatives of the Indian people elected by universal enfranchise in regularly held elections which are admired all over the world, are there to stop any injustice to SC/ST/Tribals or to provide them necessary help when they require it. The Indian Government has since 1952 a strong affirmative action program. In today's India birth in any particular caste does not entitle any one to special rights or take way any right from them (except in case of the SC/ST and other backward or economically weaker sections of the society when they are granted by the constitution). However, we appreciate your concern even if we do not understand the particular reason for your demented outbursts. Aupmanyav 08:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Bhagavad Gita also mentions that a person's caste is determined not only by janma but also by karma - i.e., in later life it is the karma or actions of a person that determine his/her caste. Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What Geeta says cannot be faulted. It says '.. Janmat Vernah ..' (God gives special propensities to each person at birth, some person may be good for studies, like Homi Bhabha or A.P.J.Abdul Kalam; some person will excell in war or games, like Tendulkar or Sam Manekshaw; some person might be good at making money, like Dhirubhai Ambani or Azim Premji; most other people would take up jobs in laboratories, army, businesses, or till land, generally helping the people in the above three categories, these would be Shudras. Shudras did not have the shame label that christian missionaries or envy-devoured muslims have tagged to them. A barber has his own specialized job to do, and so has a washerman, society needs both of them). Aupmanyav 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I get a strong feeling that you being extremely casteist! Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am Brahmin by caste. I worked with the U.S.Educational Foundation helping Indian students go to U.S. for higher studies. I was technically a Shudra, not involved in research, not involved in warring, not making money like L.N.Mittal. So what is wrong in that? A Shudra can live a sane, satisfied, a life useful to the society. Many whom I helped to go to U.S. are professors there or employed in good organizations. If you do not know and also do not want to know, then why are you here on these pages? Only to blame Hindus? The Arbitration Committee should note that you are not interested in serious debate. Aupmanyav 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: AVARNA is not untouchable. Again it seems to be your interpretation and is wrong! Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not necessary to have mastered the scriptures. We get the knowledge about our religion from our elders, from the society. In case a person does not accept the scriptures or does not want to be known as a Hindu, there is no bar on his stating that or accepting another faith. The Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Caste does not matter as far as Government of India goes (except for granting special privileges to people who are accepted according to the constitution to need help) or in private industry where the guiding priciple is the utility of the person to generate money for the company. There are many inter-caste or even inter-religious marriages, where if the families create trouble for the couple, they can get succor from law. The problem is that you seem to belong to some country which still is in medival age. You are not aware of how Indian society has changed or you do not want to acknowledge that for some personal reasons. There are no out-caste people (Avarnas) in India today. Every one belongs to some caste or some tribe, unless a person consciously chooses to do away with the caste label. That also is perfectly all right in today's India. If somebody decides not to accept food or water from another person, it is his personal choice and may be for reasons of hygene. How can a personal choice be objected to? The internet does not ban porn for just the same reason, personal choice. Aupmanyav 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: India is known as 'Hindustan' by long usage. Military bands play the tune of Iqbal's song 'Sare jahan se achcha Hindosataan Hamara'. Many Government of India undertakings are named with that. If you are an Indian citizen and want this to be changed, you can contact the member of Parliament in your area, tell him of your objections and ask him to take the case to the Parliament. If a constitutional amendment is desired then you would need the support of 75% votes in the Parliament. Constitution of India has been amended more than a 100 times on public desire. If you are not an Indian citizen, then you have no locus standii in the matter. If our untouchables have problems, we will take care of them and Government of India has always been taking very pro-active steps in this matter. Which society does not have its problems and which society is able to solve it in one day. Look at Pakistan. What kind of treatment the religious minorities get? Even those who profess Islam, like the Shias and Ahmadiyyas are killed regularly, their mosques are bombed. No use talking about treatment given to Christians and Hindus. What kind of treatment the regions get? What is happening in Baluchistan, in Pakhtoonistan, and in Northern Areas? What happened in Bangladesh? I am not anti-muslim, I am only stating the facts. As I mentioned earlier, the Census figures depend on the answers given by the respondents. Those who declare themselves as Jain, Buddhist or Sikhs are counted as such. Same goes for any caste among the Hindus. To accuse the Census of India of dishonesty is unfair and without proof. Again, if you are an Indian, I would suggest that you take the case to the appropriate authority or even the Supreme Court through a Public Interest litigation (PIL). If you are not an Indian, don't poke your nose in our affairs. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have answered about 'Hindustan' in the earlier point. How the Buddhist name us in their texts is upto them. Serpents are revered in India and many other cultures. The scientific reason is that they rid the agricultural fields of mice. The serpent plays an important role in our mythology as a servant to Lord Vishnu or as an adornment of Lord Shiva. Even when Buddha was born in a parkland, the story goes that a serpent acted as an umbrella for him and his mother. Hindu scriptures do not mention India as Naga-Loka. In our scriptures, Jambudvipa is the name of the continent in which India is situated. Jambudvipa would include many countries other than India like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and perhaps Afghanistan. I do not know which other countries could be situated in the so-visualised Jambudvipa. As I already wrote, an Indian not liking the term 'Hindustan' is free to fight his/her case in appropriate forums. What Persians mean by the word 'Hindu' is their lookout. We do not care about that. If they are cultured (which I think they are) they would not demean another people in this way. Such things are done only by uncultured people, of whom you are setting an example. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: India = Hindusthan. You have a problem with Hindus isn't it? Rohitbd 10:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A native of India could be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi, a Jew, a Jain, a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Bahai. I do not think there is any religion that is not represented in India. Non-Hindus make 20% of India's population. So what is new in this? Of course, in case of a dispute, the Arbitration Committee decides the issues. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Census of India does not count the number of Hindus all over the world. Hindus are not particularly interested in a countout. What purpose will it serve? We are not that egoistic, our religion teaches us otherwise. www.adherents.com is not a hindu organization, it gives the number of Hindus as 900 million. That is quite satisfactory for us. We do not go after proselytization like Christians or Muslims. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have not mentioned any particular fact in your item No. 10. It is a general statement. I do not think, it requires any rejoinder. Aupmanyav 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: How is anybody a Hindu? Who is a Hindu?
The person who believes in Jesus Christ and the Bible is a Christian, Who believes in Allah as God is a Muslim. Who is Hindu? 
"
Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion.
"
"SocialWorker :
This is certainly not the definition of Hindu! Non-Brahmins are not allowed to read Veda and DharmaShastras. Even today 97% percent so-called Hindus and branded as Shudras [ e.g. Castes like Maratha, Kunbi, Koshti, Agri, OBC's i.e. Other Backward Castes  etc.] ; haven't read or even seen Veda and DharmaShastra 
Please read "Riddles In Hinduism" written by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. 
Obviously there are 'Religios Slaves' of caste Brahmins. Hindu might be another name given to "Shudras" by Caste Brahmins but certainly Jain, Buddhists and Sikhs are not Hindus because these people do not accept Supremacy Of Brahmin created Vedas and DharmaShastras. In fact in India Brahmnism and Buddhism are opposite to each other and rival philosophies
"
Sikh, Jain and Buddhist are separate Religious Philosopies.
The thoughts as below are with ignorance, 
:Hardly anybody seems to sign their message. This way, you cannot tell where the message started or where it ends. Users should remember to do this. Now to Social Worker's question: Who is a hindu? Not All people agree to one definition. Supreme court has opined on it, but in the latest case in Kerala, the judge failed to give a judgement. For example, I am an atheist, I do not believe in any divine origin of either the Vedas or Geeta, I do not believe in Karma or rebirth, neither do I believe in heaven or hell; but I am a staunch Hindu. Perhaps the best explanation would be a person who describes himself as a Hindu. He may be and Indian or from any other people. Non-brahmins are free to study any book they would like to and nobody can stop them. The books are avaialble freely or might be available on internet. Shudras do not make 97% of all hindus. This is factually wrong and I do not know why wikipedia should consider such malicious statements. It only wastes valuable time for the wikipedians to include correct information and would also waste the time of Arbitration committee. If anybody has not read Vedas or Dharma Shastras, it is their own wish. How can you force anybody to read a book against his/her wishes. We are not muslims where reading of Qur'an is essential. You should have read at least some of these books to make a knowledgeable objection. Dr. Ambedkar has his own interests, I do not say that they were malafied, and not all hindus would agree to it. His views after converting to Buddhism would be irrelevant and biased to this article. The ST/SC/Backward and Economically Weaker Sections of the society rule India today, thanks to a democratic system (you yourself said that they constitute 97% of the Hindu society). They are nobody's slaves. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs do not need to accept supremacy of Brahmins, actually Brahmins need to accept the supremacy of muslims because Indian President is one, of the Sikhs because the Prime Minister is one, and of Christians because the Chairperson of the largest party in the ruling coalition is one. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism is a rival to the other, we are not Christians and Muslims fighting for supremacy for nearly 1,000 years. We respect each other, and many of our beliefs are common. Aupmanyav 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, there are thousands of Castes and sub-Castes among the Hindus. Again their treatment is a problem which the the Government of India and Hindus society will deal with. There are no out-castes, that idea is no more valid. There are people who by choice have abandoned the use of Caste names. There are tribal people who may be hindu or may profess any other religion. I do not think you know the difference between Caste and Varna. Caste is a way by the people to safeguard their particular identity, tradition, and culture. Varna is connected with the propensities given by God to a person at the time of birth. Yes, there are caste wars, all people have their own interests, it could be political power, or economic gain. As you rightly mention the caste system is not a simple subject and dunes will find it difficult to understand. We do not call Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs as Hindus, who tells you that we do? They are ennumerated separately. You have mentioned the word Bhangi, the anonimity of internet gives you safety to continue your rent, but please know that this is an cognizable offense in India and people could take you to court and get you convicted for five years in jail, the lawful word here is Jamadar or Safai Karmachari (Safai Worker). Aupmanyav 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Whoever has written "Indo-Aryans (light-skinned northerners), Dravidians (dark-skinned southerners)" obviously hasn't seen Indians. The light skin of some of the Southern Brahmins has been attributed to their northern origins(poor dark skinned southern brahmins and dark skinned northerners! I pity them.). But there are so many non-brahmins castes in South that show lighter complexion. However, colour scheme might be very complicated. In a family itself you can see both dark skinned and light skinned children. Well, you can attribute that to north Indian origin of those castes. However, if that's the case you have to declare every South Indian a north Indian since north-west India was the only way through which anyone could enter South India. I suppose we South Indians don't have to be loyal to either to light skin or to dark skin, so we don't accept any such branding from mischievous people. If you want to have an objective analysis origins of Indians, please read Dravidian race.
--Manjunatha (22 Aug 2005 21:21 IST)
I feel little knowledge is always dangerous. The person who knows well about the subject should comment and give his suggestion. It will be better for him as well as for society if he can suggest to remove evil practices rather then blaming someone. Each society's beliefs & practices may look weird by other but nobody has a right to blame it.
General words and no signature. I don't know what to say. Okay, I agree!
--Manjunatha (21 Sep 2005)
:In addition to the light-skinned Dravidian South Indians, there are light-skinned non-Aryans in North India. Color is a poor racial indicator. The Europeans are reported to be close to Africans genetically. Aupmanyav 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour of Hindus

message: What are the disputed points? May be we can remove it or modify it.
Well someone who was seriously agitated by reading caste discrimination news in newspapers, finally tried to strike his POV over this section.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the article, if someone feels that the definition of a hindu cannot be so broad OR he does not comes in hinduism under this definition may go to orkut.com and fight. 
This is an encyclopedia not playground for some n-psycho-pedos. If you are angry why we worship Shiva's phallus then we can't help it, because that's what we do, and wikipedia should be writing about it.--Renegade division 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are "Hindus in 'law'", though not "Hindus by 'religion'". That position stands untill there is an amendment of the Indian Constitution (Details above). Reference to mothers and sisters strongly objected to. The 'phallus' fixation is indicative of psychopathic symptoms. The Arbitration Committee should note this. Aupmanyav 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This particular piece of argument is extremely bigoted! Whatever Ambedkar's views were, they were his  personal views. With all due respect, he could have fought to reform Hinduism but instead chose to convert to Buddhism. Just because he said bad things about Hinduism doesn't make it so. Rohitbd 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You say that nothing insulting other religions should be included in the article, but all along you have been insulting Hindus and Hinduism by cuss words. I request that the Arbitration Committee should take a note of that. Words like Bhangi-Brahmin, most degraded people, sister fucker Yama-Yami. We can say the same thing about happenings in Islam and Christianity but refrain to do so. Why should anybody read only B. R. Ambedkar's book, there are other views as well. We have nothing against Ambedkar or his followers converting to Buddhism, it is their personal choice. Aupmanyav 09:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: User:172.203.204.9 removed a paragraph about sikhs/ jains w/the comment:"False comments. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are NOT Hindus." This may be open to debate, and the relationship between Hindu, Sikh and Jain should probably at least be discussed in this article.
:But an adherent of the Sikh or Jain or Buddhist faith may also be recognized and identified as a Hindu, as all three religious systems are inalienably linked with Hinduism, as well as Hindu history and culture. Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism, in that order, were originally unbound reform movements in India, growing from but essentially a part of mainstream society that has been identified as Hindu. --Alcidebava 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution of India includes Sikh, Jains, and Buddhist as 'hindu in law' though not 'hindu by religion'. The makers of the Indian Constitution included representatives of Sikhs (Master Tara Singh), Buddhists (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) and Jains (Kusumkant Jain), etc. Aupmanyav 06:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sikhs and jains 

message: I have deleted the following para since it sounds really arrogant and an insult to vast majority of Hindus. Since present day Indian government or any religious organization doesn't classify anybody as non-Hindus because they don't follow any or all of the pre-requisites mentioned below, it's irrelevent. Well, to keep the things simple, in the past, education be it any form( religious or otherwise) was forbidden for majority of people who are identified as Hindus presently. So there was absolutely no chance that except Brahmins anyone else would have learnt Vedas. People who blatantly add such comments(out of ignorance or arrogance) in the article must show some discretion.
Another definition of who a Hindu (or follower of Sanatana Dharma) is, states that a Hindu is one who
# Accepts the authority of the Vedas.
# Practices vegetarianism and meditation.
# Believes in the concepts of karma and reincarnation or rebirth.
Source: http://www.dharmacentral.com/faq.htm''
I agree with the concept of Karma as being definitive of Hinduism. But, the other two are principles of vedantic movement, and does not apply to all Hindus at all. A large number of Hindus are Shaivites, and they are non-vegetarian.
:Any definition of who is a hindu is like trying to define 'Brahman', Neti, Neti. Kerala High Court failed in the effort. The only valid definition is 'one who professes to be a hindu'. Aupmanyav 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brahmin definition of Hinduism 

message: The way this article has expanded in the last few days, I think we are gonna have two articles on the same topic. Most of the stuff in this article is already mentioned in the Hinduism article! Refer to the articles on Christian and Muslim and see the difference between them and Christianity and Islam respectively. --Deepak|वार्ता 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles? 

message: I strongly recommend to my fellow Wikipeople the following: 
(1) PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT A DECENT INTERVAL OF DISCUSSION. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PARTICULAR PASSAGE, DISCUSS IT FIRST! 
A lot of people put in good time and work into this, only to find it scrapped out in 30 seconds by somebody else. This is purely INSULTING!  
IF there are mistakes, problems, etc...THEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED! 
(3) THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE ADHERENTS OF HINDUISM, NOTHING ELSE. 
The all Indians are Hindus line need not be discussed at all. It is more political and purely damaging to this article's integrity.
(3) NEED TO FIND SOMEWAY TO INTEGRATE WITHIN THIS ARTICLE INFO ABOUT THE HINDU PEOPLES OF INDIA, WITH THE HINDU PEOPLES OF BALI, ETC.
Hinduism is beyond just India.
- Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya
::Can you sign with your user name?--Dangerous-Boy 09:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future of This Article  

message: Let me personally remind anybody that if you whack off portions of this article without discussion, you kill Wikipedia's integrity and nothing else - Har Har Mahadev! Nirav Maurya
:I dont have any problem with the content of what you wrote. But we do have an article called Hinduism. Whatever I deleted was already mentioned in the Hinduism article. Im sorry, but Ill have to revert yr edits. Go ahead and add the same info to the Hinduism article but all this does not belong to the Hindu article. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DELETIONS

message: Hello Deepak,
You don't get my point: The section "Religion for the Common Hindu" is CRITICAL to the Hindu article, because it should talk about what faith and religion mean to the common Hindu.
This section needs more and proper input: which is why I put the notice that this needs more contributions. 
If by any chance this is covered in the Hinduism article, then it should be scrapped off there, because that should simply be about religion, not its followers, especially if you have a special section for them.
The core point is we WikiHindus have done a bad job for ourselve. Hinduism has the poorest coverage in this encyclopedia.
:Ok, I get yr point. I agree with you that all of the Hinduism-related articles are in a very poor shape. Previously I wan involved in Indian Military- and Kashmir- related articles and later on realised the terrible state of Hinduism-related articles. Ive made some changes and added new pics to the Hinduism article. I think its time to clean up the Hindu article too. Also I would appreciate if you could create an account at Wikipedia. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 23:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion for the Common Hindu  

message: Can somebody please hurry up this pending merger? There is no point in procrastinating, since this "Hindu" article is far bigger than the Hindu people one. - Nirav.
:I suck at merging. --Dangerous-Boy 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: "Over 500 million Hindus are known to be well-versed with that language [= English]."
How well do they know English? Knowing enough of a language for simple market trading or asking the way to somewhere, is not the same as knowing enough of that language to understand speeches about general matters. When I was in Holland I found that plenty of the Dutch there knew enough English to handle their jobs, but not enough for general matters. This I discovered on my first day there, when I asked a customs officer about something that was not part of his job, namely where I could buy petrol for my motorcycle. Anthony Appleyard 17:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "knowing English" 

message: "The term Hindu may also simply identify an inhabitant of the India, regardless of religious orientation." 
- No ! it may not ! Indians can and should only be known as Indians. There is no reason to associate religion with nationalism. Historically Indians might have been known as Hindus but I don't think it would be very appropriate now. Therefore i suggest this line be altered.
:I disagree. It would simply be inaccurate to drop the histroy of Hinduism. Hindus are people belonging to land of the river Sindhu, i.e., India - and this has nothing to do with religion. Just because the British used the word "Hindu" to differentiate between religions doesn't mean that the original meaning is lost. As a religion yes, all Indians are not Hindus, but as a definition of ethnicity all Indians are Hindus. Rohitbd 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a person is Indian, does not mean he is Hindu. --Dangerous-Boy 09:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rohit, It is not as important as you think that we should insist on this. It may have been true in the past, but that is not indicated in the sentence. You can certainly say that he is 'Bharatiya'. Aupmanyav 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE ! 

message: It can be noted that the section related to Nath sampradaya in the stub hindu can be expanded more.
Like the navanath sampradaya and the tantric sect within it.
1 Your thoughts.
--Aravind Parvatikar 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nath Sampradaya 

message: I am noticing that there are some changes and questions as to whether "some" or "many" or "a few" Hindus eat meat.   This is all very qualitative; do any real numbers exist measuring this?  I can say anecdotally that most younger Hindus I know eat meat sometimes (but all abstain at certain times), but I live in the US, which is of course a whole different story.  In any case, it's best if we actually had some numbers for this.  --Deville (Talk) 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent sourcing; this answers my question exactly.  Should this be in the article then? --Deville (Talk) 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, if considered important enough. deeptrivia (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it say in the vedas about eating meat?--Dangerous-Boy 09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, in ancient times meat consumption wasn't taboo. See the article Agastya#Legends_about_Agastya for the legend behind meat being forbidden or at least restricted for Hindus. As per this page, in the other yugas, cow & horse sacrifice (and offering their meat as prasad) were allowed. However whether eating meat (esp. beef) as part of normal diet is allowed or not is not clear (or I didn't read it deeply enough). Only in the current kaliyuga is it forbidden. According to this page from the same web-site, it states the principle of causing as little harm, damage or pain as possible in order to feed ourselves. So the least one can do to survive is eat vegetarian food instead of meat, since its much easier to cultivate vegatables & rice/pulses/etc., than it is to cultivate animals for slaughter. Rohitbd 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The eating of meat