theist

Ganeshprasad has already more than adequately dealt with this misrepresentation of the vedic viewpoint in his post #30 on page. Readers should go straight to post thirty to get the clear view of the Manu Samhita instructions on the meat issue.

Another meaningless argument. The human body can also digest other humans? Sheesh is this the best you can do?

He provide canine teeth for tearing flesh. This is also in the Srimad Bhagavatam. In human society there are different levels of human beings. Some humans want to taste flesh irregardless of the animals suffering. There are primitive tribals who use their canine teeth to rip apart the most obnoxious things like pig liver, snakes, and other humans. God fulfills the desires of the demons and the angels. Human life is meant to be following the path of the angels. Do you think there are slaughterhouses in heaven??

What value is there to an advancing human being looking for God to take to religious practices that are devoid of compassion?

So is human flesh. So what? The erroneous idea that one needs to eat complete protein at the same meal was put out by a lady in the 1960's who came to an opposite view a few years later. The human body arranges amino acids into the needed types of proteins continuously and not just after digesting one particular meal. This argument is decades old. You should update your arguments. I haven't eaten meat since 1971. I get way more than enough protein through a diet rich in beans legumes nuts and seeds. You should look up the protein vitamin and mineral contents of these foods and it will help disabuse you of the notion that you need meat for protein and health.

It may indeed. But I do not accept your book as eternal scripture. It is some guidance for people of the 14th century on how to live in the circumstances in which they found themselves, IOW how to make the best use of a bad bargain. As pointed out above you must choose which part of the quaran you intend to follow. The part that says you must be compassionate to all creatures or the part that tells you it is OK to slaughter innocent animals. As you said above one can be a good Muslim and also be a pure vegetarian. Is it not also true that you cannot be a good Muslim and ignore the injunctions to be compassionate to all creatures? It is obvious that to be a good Muslim you have some serious decisions to make regarding this issue in your own life.

And here it is. Since you can be a good Muslim by eatting a pure vegetarian diet then why not do it instead of defending cruel animal slaughter just to taste bloody flesh? Thus you could also fulfill the statement above where it is said: In the name of Allah sir, please follow the instruction to be a compassionate Muslim and stop slaughtering helpless creatures to fill your belly.

Coming from a place of thought independent of the constraints of Muslim or Hindu identifications let me offer my objections to some of what I see posted here. I find both positions lacking. There is nothing compassionate about animal slaughter. For the above statement to be consistent in anyway it can only be taken that due to living in a desert environment and not having a developed system for growing or obtaining vegetarian foodstuffs from elsewhere then taking the life of an animal (by slitting it's throat BTW) might could be considered allowable. Similar to the Eskimo living in a world of ice and snow who needs to eat flesh foods to survive. But this 14th century argument certain does not apply in today's world. You eat meat because you like to eat bloody flesh and want to use the excuse "God said I can" to defend your indefensible position.

No it's not essential. Hearing and chanting the Holy Names of the Lord are the prime method for God realization

Yes the human body is made to eat meat also. The canine teeth point to that. Here is what Srila Prabhupada said on the matter. As you no doubt know Indian society reveres the cow for all she supplies to them and therefore one should not kill them. In the present day situation all animals are treated cruelty through the mechanism of the modern slaughterhouses which are actually imported onto earth from hell and they represent hell very well. I for one will not only abstain from eatting meat but I refuse milk as well because of the way the cows are treated. I eat as a vegan. But beyond the cruelty issue the Vaisnavas will not eat any food which is not first offered to God per the Bhagavad-gita. krishna will not accept a meat offering and the Vaisnava will not eat anything unless sanctified by Krishna's touch. I am not a vaisnava and not that strict but I refuse to buy and consume many foods on the cruelty grounds. Besides I find the idea of eatting meat & eggs or drinking milk repulsive. Krishna, or Allah if you wish, has provided ample foods that can be acquired without causing so much suffering.

Yes, the real name, suddha-nama. No shadows or reflections. Our goal.

Perfect example. Dhruva as a little boy being the Kings son by one of his wives, but not the son of the queen, went to sit on the king's lap but was forbidden to by the queen who wanted her own son to be king. Dhruva was hurt and angry and became determined as you described. His mother is the one who direct him to the forest to find God to help him fulfill his desires. As you mentioned by Narada's grace he became Krishna conscious and void of a desire for a kingdom. When the Visnu-dhutas came to take him to Vaikuntha he noticed his mother was also being taken to Vaikuntha. She was actually his siksa guru as the one ' who pointed the way' for Dhruva. This is an example of the disciple saving his guru.

Hare Krishna AMji

NO, that is not the point. It is how you arrived at the conclusion that is heresay IMO. We don't come to recognize Krishna's devotee by listening to others tell us who appointed who. Your idea that there is a "chosen son" is problematic. Anyone who is a true disciple of Srila Prabhupada is a chosen son, including his female embodied disciples. There could be thousands and in fact it is always the guru's desire that all his disciples rise to the transcendental platform and liberate others into Krishna consciousness. Now if an acarya has a preaching institution he may designate a particular person or group of people to head it up but guru means a knower and lover of God and that is something that comes to be from within the disciple. Perhaps Krishna is pointing you to Govinda Maharaja. The point is only Krishna reveals someone's Guru to them. Remember when Jesus was baptised by John and the Lord's voice said "this is my good son in whom I am well pleased"?

Calling your method heresay has nothing to do with the qualifications of any individual or particular situation. It has to do with how you are arriving at your conclusion.

The wise will leave this topic far behind them in their search for the true Word of God, the real transcendental sound spoken by the true representative of Krishna. For those that want to hear Reality, heresay testimony will never satisfy.

Sridhar Maharaja has taught that the flow of transcendental current flows like a crooked river and not a straight line. Don't try to trace the sampradaya in this way melvin. It is far more subtle. A river can have many branches running off going in different directions at the same time. it is not the direction of the flow that is important it is the quality of the water. I just started again yesterday with the The Golden Volcano of Divine Love by Sridhar Maharaja. What a blessing.

No reason to keep the topic alive. It's my bringing attention to the matter that seems to ignite the fire in the first place so what need to strike a second match?

The whole of human society is presently in the "lower stages of human society" with the exceptions dwindling from 3% towards 0%. When the econmy is booming Wall street is worshipped because material senses are being gratified to a larger degree. When the economy turns down towards recession and depression then in many quarters faith goes back to God for bread and rice. Then when the belly is filled again instead of focusing the energy in God's service we increase other avenues for more sense gratification. But the senses never satisfy. Then the frustrated souls who catch on to this problem worship God for salvation. Worshipping the Lord for relief from trying to satisfy the senses is just the flip side of the same coin. We can very easily fool ourselves as to why we are engaging in the worship of the Lord. What is our true motive? Are not most of us chanting Hare Krishna with a subconscious desire for heaven or salvation? It's so easy to read the above words of Srila Prabhupada and assume he is talking about those others out there. It's more difficult and perhaps a lot more honest (to ourselves) to assume he is talking about people like you and me. Srimad Bhagavatam rejects this cycle of madness that holds us back from tasting the sweet fruit of Srimad Bhagavatam.

A new one for my ignore list. Bye Bye diseased one.

Without doubt the most stupid statement I have read in decades. Krishna got Himself killed so by your 'logic' He is not Divine. Dumb...very dumb.

I know nothing of this so-called Bhagavan melvin. At the same time I am very very careful who I let my ears receive sound from where the topic of God consciousness is involved. I don't know this person's philosophy. Maybe he is an impersonalist in which case I would avoid him like poison. Maybe he is a good Vaisnava in which case would not avoid him like poison but neither would I listen to him because I am satisfied with my present source and have long quit looking for another. We must become very discerning on this point melvin.

Silly boy. Why would you think Srila Prabhupada would have a definition that differs from his spiritual masters? Besides that Bhaktisiddhanta is the one who wrote Vaisnavism Real and Apparent. It's clear that the apparent version is the one favored on this forum.

It even gave me goosebumps by hearing you repeat it. many thanks.