vedic_dude

"kings and Brahmins to appease the gods during war and peace. It is only the brahmins and a few other castes who are vegetarians and that too only beacuse of the influence of early buddhism and jainism. So hinduism in itself is fairly violent to animals!!"

Nonsense, You call them caste's ?, yet there is no word as caste in any Indian language, The Sanskrit word is Jathi which translates to Tribe or ethnic group, not caste.
Caste is a portugese word which refers to various racial hybrids. If you want to see a real caste system I suggest looking at Latin America, especially Brazil. They have mulatto, zambo, mestizo etc.. true racial castes. The reason the British Imperialists called the Hindu system a "caste" system is because of the flawed Aryan Invasion theory. Nonetheless , any form of discrimination is bad. BTW, the so called "caste" is practiced by even muslims and Christians, which proves my point that it's a just different tribal groups trying to preserve and dominate.

Let's kill millions of animals in a factory, or excuse me...cattle "graduating from bovine university", but that's ok, but somehow if we call it "animal sacrifice" then uuuuh, it's a real weird thing. Where is the logic here ?

BTW I don't think eating meat is wrong for those who desire it, since that is their basic nature at this point. Groups like PETA are not much different than Islamic Fundamentalists like Osama who are seeking to impose a one world religion and culture.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: vedic_dude ]</p>

vedic_dude

Hinduism believes that one law cannot apply to all of society since, everyone is in different levels of spiritual evolution.
Not eating meat is only for those who seek spiritual progress. In fact warriors will eat meat, since it's in tune with their "rajasic" qualities. The four classes of society exist in all civilizations, whether is formalized or not.

One who has realized Brahman (The supreme being) is a Brahmin (hence the sanskrit phrase: 'Brahma janati iti brahmanaha'). So many people can claim to be a "brahmin", but infact "Brahmin" is a title that has to be earned.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: vedic_dude ]</p>

hinduwoman

Kamakhya was originally a tribal goddess whom Hinduism adopted when it came to that region. She is worshipped as another form of Kali.

One eats the meat of the sacrifices. I don't think there is anything about actually burning the meat on the altar. Also I don't think the sacrifices were orginally meant to be ritual forms of slaughter --- it was food offerings to the gods, just like you would want for yourselves.

Vedic dude, animal sacrifice is considered weird on an atheist board because you are sacrificing to an entity that does not exist and which has never been seeing eating the offering; the devotees and priests get it all.

vedic_dude

Hinduwoman,

"..entity that does not exist and which has never been seeing eating the offering"

You have a point. Ofcourse if you consider the entire universe a the one living entity and personification of brahman, then simply leave the food outside, it will be eaten by some creature or bacteria.

I agree with you that we must see the supreme being to truly understand. In Hinduism the path to moksha is renunciation and yoga or union with the supreme being and actually experiencing. We are part and parcel of the supreme being as a spark is to fire.

Waning Moon Conrad

Pardon me for being pedantic but "god botherer" does not apply with buddhists.

Dr. Jagan Mohan

??!!
Hmm.. which Hinduism? Vaishnavite? Shaivite? Advaitic school?
Another example of gross misunderstanding and generalisation...
It is like refering to Fundamentalist Mormon church and saying Christianity is polygamous...

Hinduism is a heterogeneous family of many schools of thought and philosophy.

It would be ignorance to study a bit about Tantra and come to an conclusion about sexuality in Hinduism. Similarly, animal sacrifice is not a common Hindu practice.

Vedicdude had briefly touched on the 'gunas' (Three: Sattwic/Rajasic/Tamasic) aspects of religious practice.

Animal sacrifices to Demigods are still prevalent in parts of India and elsewhere, but the practice is not supported or condoned by the mainstream philosophical schools. Vaishnavism and to an extent Shaivism is totally against animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifices are tribalistic in nature and rare.

That report is undoubtedly wrong, by an over jealous reporter wanting to shock the audience. LA Times with that sort of BS.. I am not suprised.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Toto

I have read several reports from rural Greece of ritual slaughter of bulls in a fashion that is an obvious throwback to the pagan animal sacrifices. The ritual slaughter would of course be followed by the ritual barbeque.

As I said, I don't think that meat eaters can complain about animal sacrifice in general. It is just that the idea that terrorist violence is due to your own failure to follow the ancient religion, and that you can make things right with the universe by following an ancient religious ritual is a kind of magical thinking. It would be like slaughtering some livestock on the ruins of the World Trade Center to atone for our sins.

karthik

Dr. Mohan:

Have you been to any temples in rural South India ot atleast have you seen any animal sacrifices performed in Hindu temples? Just by saying that animal sacrifices are tribal nature you are only trying to whitewash the animistic component in Hinduism. If animal sacrifices doesnt fit in your mould of Hinduism, you cant just brand them to be rare and as being performed by ignorant folk. It is the illeterate people who define what hinduism is today and I am right in branding Hinduism to be fairly violet towards animals.

When you say that animal sacrifices are not common in Hinduism, you are only talking about urbanized centers and not about any villages. Please do visit one before writing about the place of animal sacrifices.

ageofreason2000

OK, OK a small mistake , but still if I was a monkey (which I 99% am) i'd want those of the orange dot in power.

Buddism is an offshoot of hinduism and isn't hindusim like a catch-all mythology for all the older faiths in india, a unifying theory?

Aren't the more rural areas still carrying out (what westerners would call) Pagan rituals, offering to the ancient gods, only hinduism because hinduism allows for their deities existence?

Age

Seraphim

"Buddism is an offshoot of hinduism and isn't hindusim like a catch-all mythology for all the older faiths in india, a unifying theory?"

My reply : Go and read Bhagavad Gita and compare it with Buddhism teachings, you will see why Hindus believe Buddhism is part of Hindusm.

"Aren't the more rural areas still carrying out (what westerners would call) Pagan rituals, offering to the ancient gods, only hinduism because hinduism allows for their deities existence?"

My reply : Local belief get mixed into Buddhism wherever the teaching spread. There is Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism etc because of local beliefs. In some parts such as Indonesia and Tibet, there are sacrifices still be conducts due to local beliefs.