theist

6. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-vegetarian food

Readers should go straight to post thirty to get the clear view of the Manu Samhita instructions on the meat issue.

5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food?

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

4. Humans have Omnivorous set of teeth

If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a set of flat teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion, tiger, or leopard, they all have a set of pointed teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty God wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to need and to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

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?

3. Meat is nutritious and rich in complete protein

Non-vegetarian food is a good source of excellent protein. It contains biologically complete protein i.e. all the 8 essential amino acid that are not synthesized by the body and should be supplied in the diet. Meat also contains iron, vitamin B1 and niacin.

 

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.

2. Qur'an permits Muslims to have non-vegetarian food

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.

1. A Muslim can be a pure vegetarian

A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.

 

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:

Islam enjoins mercy and compassion for all living creatures.

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.

Question:

Killing an animal is a ruthless act. Why then do Muslims consume non-vegetarian food?

Answer:

'Vegetarianism' is now a movement theworld over. Many even associate it with animal rights. Indeed, a large number of people consider the consumption of meat and other non-vegetarian products to be a violation of animal rights.

Islam enjoins mercy and compassion for all living creatures. At the same time Islam maintains that Allah has created the earth and its wondrous flora and fauna for the benefit of mankind. It is upto mankind to use every resource in this world judiciously, as a niyamat (Divine blessing) and amanat (trust) from Allah.

Let us look at various other aspects of this argument.

 

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.

Books : Srimad-Bhagavatam : Canto 6: "Prescribed Duties for Mankind" : SB 6.4: The Hamsa-guhya Prayers : SB 6.4.9 : PURPORT :

By nature’s law, or the arrangement of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one kind of living entity is eatable by other living entities. As mentioned herein, dvi-padāṁ ca catuṣ-padaḥ: the four-legged animals (catuṣ-padaḥ), as well as food grains, are eatables for human beings (dvi-padām). These four-legged animals are those such as deer and goats, not cows, which are meant to be protected. Generally the men of the higher classes of society—the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas—do not eat meat. Sometimes kṣatriyas go to the forest to kill animals like deer because they have to learn the art of killing, and sometimes they eat the animals also. Śūdras, too, eat animals such as goats. Cows, however, are never meant to be killed or eaten by human beings. In every śāstra, cow killing is vehemently condemned. Indeed, one who kills a cow must suffer for as many years as there are hairs on the body of a cow. Manu-saṁhitā says, pravṛttir eṣā bhūtānāṁ nivṛttis tu mahā-phalā: we have many tendencies in this material world, but in human life one is meant to learn how to curb those tendencies. Those who desire to eat meat may satisfy the demands of their tongues by eating lower animals, but they should never kill cows, who are actually accepted as the mothers of human society because they supply milk. The śāstra especially recommends, kṛṣi-go-rakṣya: the vaiśya section of humanity should arrange for the food of the entire society through agricultural activities and should give full protection to the cows, which are the most useful animals because they supply milk to human society. (More...)

 

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.

oh btw,the bhagavatam is never wrong...it talks of offenselessly chanting 'Hari' once.

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

Thus in order to guarantee further sense gratification after death, in heaven, there is some system of religious observance. But this is not the purpose of religion. The path of religion is actually meant for self-realization, and economic development is required just to maintain the body in a sound, healthy condition. A man should lead a healthy life with a sound mind just to realize vidyä, true knowledge, which is the aim of human life. This life is not meant for working like an ass or for culturing avidyä for sense gratification.

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

So, it`s my conclusion that`s hearsay to you.

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.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj left a testament or will who should be his successor when he departs unlike Om Visnupad AC Bhaktivedanta Maharaj who didn`t leave any. ISKCON after Srila Prabhupad left on 1977 became a boat without a steering wheel. Her senior members should have foreseen that. When it was time to install another one in the person of Srila Sridhar Maharaj, ISKCON didn`t make a wise move. ISKCON and SCS Math should be in the same boat as one with Srila Govinda Maharaj( when Srila Sridhar Maharaj departed on 1986) by now as steering wheel(bonafied). Otherwise, it will get stuck forever in the mud of the crooked river.

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.

Theist for giving me the attention I obviously crave so desperately, Thanks.

1] If you agree with this: "I think Srila Prabhupada's definition does not differ from his spiritual masters!!!

 

And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is the one who wrote Vaisnavism Real and Apparent."

 

2] You wrote: "It's clear that the apparent version is the one favored on this forum."

Again I respond: Why do you not "Re-state it explicitly?" --[yes, I know the what it says in the 'Art of War', "the general must be inscrutable" --so . . . if you don't say so . . . I'll just have to understand via heavy investigation . . . ]

 

<I'll be leaving a message at 1-1-2 soon.>

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?

In the lower stages of human civilization, there is always competition to lord it over the material nature or, in other words, there is a continuous rivalry to satisfy the senses. Driven by such consciousness, man turns to religion. He thus performs pious activities or religious functions in order to gain something material. But if such material gains are obtainable in other ways, then so-called religion is neglected. This is the situation in modern civilization. Man is thriving economically, so at present he is not very interested in religion. Churches, mosques or temples are now practically vacant. Men are more interested in factories, shops, and cinemas than in religious places which were erected by their forefathers. This practically proves that religion is performed for some economic gains. Economic gains are needed for sense gratification. Often when one is baffled in the pursuit of sense gratification, he takes to salvation and tries to become one with the Supreme Lord. Consequently, all these states are simply different types of sense gratification.

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.

TRANSLATION SB 1.1.2

Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhāgavata Purāṇa propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart.The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhāgavatam, compiled by the great sage Vyāsadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of Bhāgavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is established within his heart.

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

The fact that Jesus got himself killed shows that he wasn't anything divine, did he?

 

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.

theist & Kulapavana [i'd like to grab both of you two by the ear lobe and make yous write on the Black-board] --the problem is lack of academic protocol.

 

I was interested in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's definition ... but neither of you two would re-iterate what you say you posted as his definition.

 

Where is yours Theist? [i looked and then got tired of searching]

 

Where is yours Kulapavana? [your Post #107 --"Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari" is the anti-thesis of Vaishnava]

 

It is almost like you are arguing --only to find out later that y'all forgot to DEFINE what the actually debate was about.

 

Oye Vey talk about non-sequetors . . . off-topic yet again.

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.