You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
India, the mystIc East
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
Ok, did you just eat the meat instead? It's good that you don't have to kill something yourself?
oh, that is were you are bending at...
yes I do eat meat, quite rarely thou. What do I feel about it? I just eat it, I don't think about animals, I am hungry and I eat.
My view of Eastern "spiritualism", or whatever the British and other Western scientists and religious scholars thought they had found, is that it looks strange to someone who has been raised (since birth) in a paradigm that sees a single deity, and decries all others as "false". Me too, I grew up that way.
The Eastern mind and the reason for the inversion - where the sacrifice of an animal, is now the sacrifice of one's need for the animal - is cultural, obviously, but what are the different points of view? Why is the Western model exclusive and individualistic, whereas the Eastern one is inclusive and "dividualistic"? One side sees a "single" God, the other sees "all" Gods, as a single, the whole is the one.
In the West, it seems, the monotheistic paradigm was one that defended itself and fought off others, the Eastern one stayed open and adapted a universal, rather than individual paradigm.
I've been "interested" in Eastern ways of thought and meditation for most of my life. I believe that certain practises (of an individual nature), part of the science of Yoga, can help you to understand yourself in a way that seems available to the Western mind only through external, rather than internal processes. I could clarify that, but maybe later.
The ideas in both the West and East revolve around the abstraction of "sacrifice" and "sanctity".
We got these from the need to live in stable groups, in which food, and the getting and giving of it, became ritualised.
Music, dancing and singing (i.e. "play") all became activities that wove the religious notions we all still have today, which is about being thankful, that we can get food, that we can share it amongst ourselves, and we can stay in coherent social groups - as long as we don't start being un-thankful, un-helpful (not sharing, or finding food for the group). Then there's guilt, and shame and ostracism. We still do the same stuff today, as we did around the campfires; it goes all the way back.
The Eastern mind and the reason for the inversion - where the sacrifice of an animal, is now the sacrifice of one's need for the animal - is cultural, obviously, but what are the different points of view? Why is the Western model exclusive and individualistic, whereas the Eastern one is inclusive and "dividualistic"? One side sees a "single" God, the other sees "all" Gods, as a single, the whole is the one.
In the West, it seems, the monotheistic paradigm was one that defended itself and fought off others, the Eastern one stayed open and adapted a universal, rather than individual paradigm.
I've been "interested" in Eastern ways of thought and meditation for most of my life. I believe that certain practises (of an individual nature), part of the science of Yoga, can help you to understand yourself in a way that seems available to the Western mind only through external, rather than internal processes. I could clarify that, but maybe later.
The ideas in both the West and East revolve around the abstraction of "sacrifice" and "sanctity".
We got these from the need to live in stable groups, in which food, and the getting and giving of it, became ritualised.
Music, dancing and singing (i.e. "play") all became activities that wove the religious notions we all still have today, which is about being thankful, that we can get food, that we can share it amongst ourselves, and we can stay in coherent social groups - as long as we don't start being un-thankful, un-helpful (not sharing, or finding food for the group). Then there's guilt, and shame and ostracism. We still do the same stuff today, as we did around the campfires; it goes all the way back.
pardon the muddle
it is ok to kill cos "lesser" animals do so without compunction
it seems to be the way of the world
so..
being somewhat sapien, we hypothesize and make it ok
yet..
dogfood
a synthesis of nutrients
an enabler
in light of that, any rationalization will be self serving
sorry
murderers!
it is ok to kill cos "lesser" animals do so without compunction
it seems to be the way of the world
so..
being somewhat sapien, we hypothesize and make it ok
yet..
dogfood
a synthesis of nutrients
an enabler
in light of that, any rationalization will be self serving
sorry
murderers!
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
I was wondering. In which group does the practice of Islam in South Asia fall under.
Pirs, Madrasahs, Marriage ceremonies, Death rituals, Qawwali, Ghazal, Moghul culture, and Shahr of Muslim philosophers is Eastern, not Western ,to most South Asian Muslims.
I was just asking what Hindus think about this.
Pirs, Madrasahs, Marriage ceremonies, Death rituals, Qawwali, Ghazal, Moghul culture, and Shahr of Muslim philosophers is Eastern, not Western ,to most South Asian Muslims.
I was just asking what Hindus think about this.
Yes, I've murdered sheep, or sacrificed their existence for the benefit of running a farm - which produces beef and sheep - you know, the stuff that everyone ends up seeing on shelves in nice little packets.
hmm
so its about profit and not survival?
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Muslims in Pakistan, India, and Iran have many different customs which are based on Eastern understanding. The Qawwali, Ghazal, Shahr are the result of this. Moghul culture itself is South Asian, not Western, and it is based on Islam.
Islam is very different than Judaism and Christianity in understanding and practice.
Muslims believe that Islam is more Eastern than Western, what do you think of this?
Islam is very different than Judaism and Christianity in understanding and practice.
Muslims believe that Islam is more Eastern than Western, what do you think of this?
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
The whole concept of naming the region where Islam was dominant the Middle East was because the Western people viewed it as foreign and alien. This is why the region is called Middle East today.
In ancient times, however, Persia and India had much in common, even after both were ruled by Muslims, because of joined heritage and culture. Rather than use Western concepts of Western and Eastern, I believe that there is more benefit in using regional descriptions.
Though Islam is Abrahamic, Christianity and Judaism have both borrowed much from pre-Christian European themes and culture, while Islam has gained much in terms of culture and heritage from the various countries of the present "Middle East", North Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia.
In ancient times, however, Persia and India had much in common, even after both were ruled by Muslims, because of joined heritage and culture. Rather than use Western concepts of Western and Eastern, I believe that there is more benefit in using regional descriptions.
Though Islam is Abrahamic, Christianity and Judaism have both borrowed much from pre-Christian European themes and culture, while Islam has gained much in terms of culture and heritage from the various countries of the present "Middle East", North Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia.
Pythagoras was a vegetarian - the members of his esoteric school were not allowed to eat meat and vegetarians were called Pythagoreans up until the 1800's.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.