India, the mystIc East

Vkothii

Banned
Banned
Hinduism is the idea of sacrifice come full circle from early (iron-age say, and following) stages when animal sacrifice was a close part of the ritualism, but later, certain animals - cows, elephants, mostly domesticated - became sacred. The idea of sacrifice inverts in the Hindu (read: "Vedic tradition" here, folks) symbology from killing an animal to revering it (as godly) and sacrificing something else, which is the idea of service or selflessness, of activity and thought that are not directed inward but outward, or with no consideration for personal gain or recompense, i.e. holiness or "purity".

The symbology returns from the external "behaviour" of the world, to the internal behaviour of the self - an inner space now describes the external symbology and mythology. The "gods" resolve into external beings and internal beings - God is everywhere and all gods are God - the same in animals (and particularly those that were previously sacrificed), as in humans, except humans have the "extra grace" of human existence, the chance to achieve a truly selfless state of being, or Buddhahood. The fact Buddhism became a splinter following in its own right does not detract in the least from the encompassing Hindu pantheism, which can rightly lay claim to Buddha's asceticism and the "path" he travelled in any case.

Buddha was born into Hinduism, and became a religious hero, like the mythical Lord Krsna who saved Arjuna and his clan, Buddha saved himself then set about teaching others how to do it too. The sacrifice here is of one's actions and 'self-ness'; the idea of nirvana or samadhi is of a state of merging, which is what Buddha was meant to have achieved after years of struggle with his own mind and "worldliness", of surrendering all sense of self, of seeing your individualness as a mere drop in a much bigger ocean, which as a drop will merge with a larger body of water - you also merge with, or lose your ego in.

Except we all like to look before we jump in, as it were.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the British decided to call it (they also called Kalikut "Calcutta", among other anglicisations), it was there when they showed up, I would say.

Have you direct experience of Hindu philosophy, or have you tried yoga, say?
Or gone vegetarian?
Not sacrificed a cow, maybe?
 
Whatever the British decided to call it (they also called Kalikut "Calcutta", among other anglicisations), it was there when they showed up, I would say.

Have you direct experience of Hindu philosophy, or have you tried yoga, say?
Or gone vegetarian?
Not sacrificed a cow, maybe?

Calcutta: There is a saying that a British Officer was on the horse travelling toward Kalikut (or whatever name was at the time) and asked a person with a lot of hay as to the name of the place in English. The guy did not understand an from the hand gestures thought the British guy is asking if the hay was fresh. So he replied: Kal (Yesterday) katta (I cut) to which the name Calcutta was born....was it true...who knows...so long ago....

Hindu Philosophy: There is a common thread to all the Philosophies in India. My direct experience is that I learned from a famous Swami (Nikhilananda) and after several years was allowed to teach. Same for Yoga. I taught in several colleges in USA.

Vegetarian - nay, But I try

Holy cows are for the Brahmins (religious caste) who are not allowed to eat meat. Kshyatriyas (the warrior class) do. After all, when you are fighting in a forest or something you need the protein to keep your strength up...besides, it is a condensed food than carrying grains or searching for fruits and vegetables....

In early India, calves were sacrificed and eated by even the Brahmins. Over the years, something happened, either one king (usually a Kshyatriya) decreed that his priests should not eat meat because they may be getting too agressive...or some Brahmin said...Yuk...(we will never know)...:D
 
I would say that someone saying: "yoga, vegetarianism, and the non-sacrifice of animals, are not Hindu per se", needs to do quite a lot of explaining. About six volumes worth.

The fact that India has a pantheistic religious philosophy, that has six modern "branches", doesn't detract in the slightest from what I say in the OP.

Someone seems to be missing the point. Perhaps not altogether, but still not really seeing what the subject in my OP is and what it isn't: it isn't about "Hindus", for starters. It's about sacrifice, and what it is, OK?

The British came across a pantheistic culture that they sought to explain. The people they studied did not, and still don't to a large extent, recognise the same boundaries or even apply the same kinds of analysis. The Brits tripped over Vedic culture and the thread of an early language straight away.
 
Last edited:
Its like going to a buffet, eating the salad and thinking that was the whole meal.

Indian philosophy is inclusive, not exclusive.

I suggest this book to get a good grasp of how Indians think.

http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/0374105839

You can argue about ANYTHING, but always remember, people are more important than any idea. So be respectful and polite and the favour will be returned to you.
 
S.A.M. said:
be respectful and polite and the favour will be returned to you.
Same to you with bells on. And extra incense.

Your and my points of view appear to diverge at about sentence 2 of the OP.

I'm not trying to explain the ins and outs of Hinduism or Vedism, or any ism. So, per se, whether or not yoga, vegetarianism, or even Vedism, are a part of "Hindu" culture, may not per se, be all that relevant.

India is nonetheless where modern cultures found something that was, as I outline above, an inversion of the notion of "sacrifice to a god".
 
Last edited:
I mean, sacrifice is a notion that is secondary to freedom of opinion. People may violently disagree with you. But you're still allowed to have an opinion. They may argue for hours and hours, but, its still okay to be yourself. You can walk naked if you like, beat yourself, eat meat, not eat meat, walk barefoot to protect insects, refuse root vegetables because they are the home of bacteria, behead a goat for Kali, politely refuse to share a glass, demand a piece of what someone is eating, its all fine. There are no strangers, only other people.

Thats not sacrifice, thats tolerance.
 
I'm having an opinion.

I know Indian culture is inclusive - I've known that for "some time", shall we say.
 
Sorry, I'm trying to help, but making it worse. I do not think all Indians are pantheists or follow any one system.
 
Ok, so the question remains - where did this "inverted", or "reverted" notion arise. or when? At what stage of the concurrent development or evolution of religious pantheism (which is also a monotheism, something else the Western mind struggles with), alongside the idea of "sacrifice".

That is, the external/internal notion reverses to an internal/external one.

The notion of sacred food, shifts to the notion of sacrificing oneself instead of an animal (which is then sanctified or made sacred - it's been offered to the group dynamic, the "host", and now let's eat), one "consumes" one's own need for the external sanctified offering, and instead offers oneself, or surrenders the individual notion of existence for one of universal existence; "sacrificing oneself instead" is the Eastern notion that Jesus Christ was meant to represent, but re-framed as a sacrificial offering to a monotheism that was exclusive, that recognised no "other" god.
 
KM,

In early India, calves were sacrificed and eated by even the Brahmins. Over the years, something happened, either one king (usually a Kshyatriya) decreed that his priests should not eat meat because they may be getting too agressive...or some Brahmin said...Yuk...(we will never know)...

I know that this is simply not true. Please quote references whenever you post a sensitive thing like that. I have never heard stuff like that before.

Rick
 
Its true though. Historically the Brahmins ate all kinds of meat, calf meat was a delicacy. They were turned away from it by Buddhism, I think

Most of the world religions sanctify offering of animals in sacrifice including Hinduism. Hindu scriptures are witnesses to such sacrifices and killings of animals for consumption. References of such commands are replete in Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti, Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmins, Grihsutras, Dharmasutras and others.

This column would not suffice for quoting all such references but a few from different scriptures are imperative to bring home the point and clear the misconceptions:
Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) that, “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”
Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) writes, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

Also, comments of some great scholars of Hinduism are also worth noting:
· Hinduism’s greatest propagator Swami Vivekanand said thus: “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, vol.3, p. 536).
· Mukandilal writes in his book ‘Cow Slaughter – Horns of a Dilemma’, page 18: “In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (alter).”
· A renowned scholar of scriptures Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)
· Adi Shankaracharya’ commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen.
· The book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay and edited by renowned historian R.C.Majumdar (Vol.2, page 578) says: “this is said in the Mahabharat that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in charity”.
 
The Rig-Vedas document, among many other things, the arrival of the notion of self-sacrifice, or ascetic existence, somewhere or other, I'm quite sure.
 
A question: who else has ever had to kill an animal (something that I did periodically to feed farm dogs once) - for whatever reason, including "putting it out of its misery", and what sort of emotional response did you have when, or after you did?

Anyone?
 
A question: who else has ever had to kill an animal (something that I did periodically to feed farm dogs once) - for whatever reason, including "putting it out of its misery", and what sort of emotional response did you have when, or after you did?

Anyone?

does a cockroach count?
 
draq said:
does a cockroach count?
Only if you're a Buddhist...:shrug:

Let's re-frame the question: an animal that is obviously sentient, say something we would consider as a pet, or which is already domesticated, like sheep, goats, cattle, you know the sort of thing: two eyes, four legs, a tail.
 
Good for you. So you can't report any particular feelings about offing a sheep or a cow, then, for the "good"?
Or the fact that people do this every day for a living, so you, me and a lot of other people can feel "good" about having meat on the table - the altar, I should say.
 
Back
Top