3 reasons why ban on cow slaughter is ridiculous

Vinod K. Jose, who watched cows in his upper-caste neighbour’s house in Manipal being looked after by a servant belonging to the Koraga tribal tribe who ate beef, on why “Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill 2010” is fraught, in Caravan:

1) People who coexist with cattle—the ones who get their hands dirty looking after the animals— should not be left out of the debate against those who make higher moral claims of militant vegetarianism, those who preach the doctrine of the sacrosanct bovine, yet watch the animals eat plastic and urban waste and return no physical care to the animals.

2) Cows were not ‘sacred’ during the Vedic and post-Vedic periods. Indra had a weakness for bull meat, and Agni for bull as well as cow, the texts say. Taittiriya Brahman says: atho annam via gauh (verily the cow is food). And in Charak Samhita, the Ayurvedic medical text, cow’s flesh is prescribed as a medicine for various diseases.

3) Beef contains 22.5 proteins while rice has only 6 to 8 percent and wheat only 10 to 12 percent. Also for its essential amino acids, animal proteins are qualitatively better than vegetable proteins. This is also a reason lower-caste Hindus continue to eat beef in spite of ritualistic Hindus making it a taboo.

The right to one’s food preference has to be respected just as much as another’s right to avoid a particular food.

Read the full article: The beef over buff

Also read: Is ban on cow slaughter ‘majority appeasement’?

The cruel, repressive regime of Colonel Sanders

Leaves so large you could serve a thali on them

Tags: , , , , , ,

47 Responses to “3 reasons why ban on cow slaughter is ridiculous”

  1. clash Says:

    we all know why it is being banned.

  2. mukunda Says:

    Taittiriya Brahman says: atho annam vai gauh (verily the cow is food).

    there is a saying. half knowledge is dangerous, and the author’s note on the above reference from Taittiriya Brahmana is a solid example for that.
    so according to the author’s (so called half baked) logic, what should be the conclusion of another sloka from the vedas as written below?

    Aham annam aham annam aham annam !
    Aham annādo’ham annādo’ham annādah!

    I am the food! I am the food! I am the food!

    I am the eater of the food, I am the eater of the food, I am the eater of the food

    answer:it means that the people eat themselves(i am sure the author’s logic would agree with this answer)
    this is stupidity at its peak. just google up for this particular sloka. you can find them mentioned in only anti hindu sites. i wouldnt like to comment on the author’s sanskrit knowledge, but
    annam vai gauh means food is verily\indeed gau(cow)
    now why refer food to cow? reference is usually made due to the similiarity in attributes. since Cow is sacred, food is also referred to as sacred.
    so annam vai gauh means annam is indeed sacred(as a Cow).
    if only the author mentioned the whole line of that sloka of
    Taittiriya Brahamana, III. 9.8.2-3 (Anandasramasanskritgranthavalih 37, Vol III, 3rd edition, Poona, 1979.
    “yajno vai gauh; yajnam eva labhate; atho annam vai gauh; annam evarundhe…’ ”
    we could have clearly seen that its not gau(cow) which is compared to multiple entities, but multiple entities like yajna, food etc which are compared to gau.
    please correct me if wrong.

  3. Mysore Peshva Says:

    Nonsense. Mr. Vinod K. Jose is selectively quoting — selected portions of text, and selected scholars — to state a position that seems to be untenable to anyone that has studied India’s religious traditions, culture of compassion, or ancient and middle history.

    Mr. Jose’s view is inconsistent with the relevant cultural and historical traditions, of which he is clearly uninformed. I will try to write more about this later (I have already addressed this topic in a few earlier comments many weeks ago).

    Thank you, Mukund.

    I am amused with Mr. Jose’s dig at “militant vegetarianism” — a shameless irony given who wields the rusty knife that brutally kills millions of defenseless, often old and disabled, animals. Violence or a notional acceptance of violence goes hand-in-hand with participating in, and advocating, any meat-eating.

  4. Furious_Telangana Says:

    The chinese eat dog meat and some in europe and central asia eat horse meat. Why does US and several other countries do not allow “these” cuisines to be served in an american restaurant?

    The thing is creatures like horse and dog have a very special place in the social norms of the americans similar to indians do with the cow.

    Hindus do not eat cow just as the americans do not eat dog or a horse.

    The chinese do not question the americans and the same is expected from the other side. Hindu’s too expect that sort of understanding.

    Why protest only for cow meat? You should protest to be able to eat every animal in this list…

    After all, christian norms are the benchmark for you.

  5. Madhava Says:

    Man is designed to eat Veg. Why?

    The protein in Veg includes enzymes which will digest the protein. Whereas, Non Veg does not include enzymes to digest the protein. So, the body of a human has to work that much harder to digest the protein in Non-Veg. All animals eat Non-Veg uncooked. It is only humans who cook and eat Non-Veg. By cooking and adding masala man makes it palatable. In fact he is forcing Non – Veg down his own throat, little realizing that the high quantity of protein and other animal fats, without the supporting enzymes is being stored everywhere in the body to cause ill health later.

    The carbon foot print of rearing cows and animals for consumption is too high.

    It was Albert Einstein who once said, if there is one thing that can save this world it is Vegetarianism.

    Wake up man.

  6. Nastika Says:

    Vegetable prices have already hit the roof. Now if if all beef eating start on vegetables, prices will pierce the roof !

  7. indresh Says:

    it’s crazy religion vs logic. no point.

  8. anatho-daiva-rakshakaha Says:

    This country needs all kinds of bills and one of them is remove-minority-tag bill. The minority tag is being played as loud and as often as our fm stations playing ” hale paatre hale kabbuna etc etc”.
    It’s a joke that the country which did not have any of this minority tags till about 60 years ago and no minorities till about 1000 years ago are acting too smart.

  9. dodo Says:

    If these are the logics behind cow-slaughter then same can be argued for cannibalism.

    1. People co-exist with people- there are some people who get their hands dirty while looking after others. Those who preach the doctrine of the sacrosanct human flesh, yet watch the men & women eat nothing ( eg: amlashole etc.) and urban waste ( visit any railway station) and return no physical care to the people.

    2. Mukunda took care of this

    3. Human flesh is very protein rich. It certainly has nutritioinal value for certain segments ( source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3l2mgw034041n5k/fulltext.pdf).

    Sooo cannibalism must be legalized.

    I personally don’t have any stance on the cow-slaughter issue- but there is problem, if these are the three strongest reasons supporters of the slaughter could argue.

  10. Mahesh Says:

    Huh! What is the point of this article? Is it just to offend vegetarians, those who hold the cow sacred, and anyone with compassion for animals? It is inflammatory. Of course, the author has the right to express his views about the issue, but we have the right to get offended. It is unfortunate that the same blog which I turn to for news and balanced views about my beloved Karnataka, Kannada and Bangalore also chooses to insert such s**t into its blog, ostensibly for no other reason than to offend its readers. The article is full of trashy unsubstantiated claims. When did Kancha Iliah become an authority on the nutritional and dietary habits of Indians? I rarely think about the authors’ intentions for writing articles unless they are high on inflammatory content and low on quality. Vinod K Jose or whichever fart wrote this article has selectively chosen facts to represent his point of view. He talks as though the Vedas are like the bible- as if all Hindus (of the author’s definition) are supposed to be like Christians and Muslims in following Brahmanaaha to the word (I shall even ignore the fact that the author mis-quotes and mis-interprets what is said there).

  11. Pramaanika Says:

    As suggested half baked knowledge is dangerous.I would request the author to please revisit the references he has made and enlighten all of us on what the exact meaning is. Also give us references where it is mentioned that Indira, Agni liked Cows’ meat.

    Please understand that a bull is different from the COW.We have seen bisons and other bovine classes being sacrificed to gods but not the “COW”.

  12. Gaby Says:

    Am not competent to comment on the content. But hey what does one mean by ‘ a servant belonging to the Koraga tribal’- implications of slavery!!!! The usually high editorial standards of Churumuri taking a knock?

  13. Jay Says:

    What a stupid, meaningless article!

  14. KJ Says:

    Even though Hindus/Brahmins ate meat centuries ago, it does not mean we revert back to those practices just because it is convenient to use that excuse now. That said, cannibalism was also in existence, should we revert back to that too?
    Vegetarianism is a concept that encourages compassion towards animals as well a sustainable way of living.
    There is a reason why society progresses, why society drops certain practices and adopts other new ones. If not for this progressive nature, we would still be witnessing Sati and other cruel practices.

  15. C Says:

    Regardless of whether or not “Hinduism” – a nebulous concept which in itself is not actually one religion – allows or disallows the consumption of cow meat, in my opinion India should allow those who do not consider themselves HIndus – as well as those Hindus who have no issues with eating beef – to eat beef.

    This umbrella would include atheists, agnostics, muslims, christians, lower caste hindus whose families eat beef, as well as all other hindus who simply see no moral duty to abstain arbitrarily from eating one particular animal, and who see the singling out of a cow as somehow “sacred” as ultimately a product of mythology (I fall into two of those categories simultaneously – an atheist and traditionally a lower caste Hindu whose family has always eaten beef) .

    Ultimately, in a plural and secular (lets hope) country, it is not up to the state to dictate what its citizens may not kill or eat as these are decisions that are best left to the better judgement of individuals and individual morality. No doubt there are even health arguments for being vegetarian and abstaining from mutton too. However, should the state dictate health decisions? No. Then on what grounds can the state dictate on issues of religion? This just boils down to a bunch of conservative and fundamentalist Hindus who believe that their beliefs be codified in the law of the land and thus attempt to affect the habits of the nonfundamentalists of all stripes.

    As for the offending of religious sentiments, as Philip Pullman said, and as was quoted in this blog, “No one has the right not to be offended”, for if everyone had that right, then no society could ever function much less one as heterogenous as India. This is the rational for a pluralistic and secular nation, because it is clear that the only alternative is a Hindu Hegemonic Nation, and the day that materializes, my friends, would be the day I renounce my citizenship.

  16. LP Says:

    if the non-vegetarians respect the vegetarians rights to eat grass, why is the other way being objected?

    does the chaddi gang and its followers have no other issues to raise?

  17. prasad Says:

    I remember when Nijalingappa was the CM of Mysore, this topic arose and he offered 100 Acres of land to those who opposed cow slaughter, to look after all these stray cattle. Nobody came forward.

  18. cp Says:

    Seven years of imprisonment for just eating beef is totally against the Rights of Man. It is total nonsense. What if Muslims say idol worship is against our religion and therefore Hindus also should stop it?

  19. jobinmartin Says:

    In kerala majority of Hindu’s eat beef. It does not come in their way of worship, because diet and worship are different. Muslim’s object to Ham, Upper caste Hindu’s object to Beef, it doesn’t mean that every other person living in this country should be made to obey these rules. But eating beef/Ham in front of someone who hates it is not pardonable. We must respect the sensitivities of others even though we do not share their views.

    Vegetable’s are deficient in Vit B12 and it can lead to Megaloblastic anemia. As some other reader quoted vegetables do not contain enzymes for digesting food, our bodies have the enzymes to digest both meat and vegetables. And don’t forget EGG is the complete protein.

  20. Alok Says:

    Since the Jose and everyone else have mixed up three separate points, I guess it is upto me to sort this out.

    1. Vegetarianism is cool. It is environmentally friendly, Gandhiji endorsed it, it is healthy and of course, Hindus believe it is their religious duty to be so.

    1.1. Eating beef is taboo to some Hindus, not at all to any other religious community. Likewise, eating pork is taboo to Muslims and Jews and (probably some Hindus as well) but not at all to others. It’s all cool. No one need to debate the finer points of eating taboos cause we have them all.

    2. Should the State use one religious community’s eating taboos and impose them on everyone else? Probably not. Especially not in an avowedly secular country.

    3. Should the Karnataka State Government ban cow slaughter? The Constitution also says it should. The popularly elected government thinks it should. I guess that is as good reason in most places.

    4. Is it right?

    This is a far more difficult question that no one here has really tried answering. One side says it is not right because it takes away jobs and livelihoods. So does most of our environmental regulation, but somehow the possibility of a better environment justifies this. Why not religious sentiments of the majority (or even the minority? Would a State be wrong in banning pigs from the State?)

    One side says it is right because religious sentiments of the majority, but when we are talking about Hinduism, it is very hard to define who is the majority. Perhaps some Hindus don’t think that people who eat beef are not Hindus, but such Hindus themselves may not be in the majority. Besides, who is the State to tell anyone how to follow his or her religion?

    On a side note, in a State which is witnessing one of the largest natural resources loot in the country’s history, I think we really have better things to do than waste time and effort on this ludicrous bill and debate.

  21. D P SATISH Says:

    The BJP run by the RSS says that even the Dalits (beef eaters) are also Hindus. Whenever Dalits oppose that or claim that they are not Hindus, RSS gets angry and tries to convice them or forces them accept that they are also Hindus.

    If the RSS really believes that the Dalits are also Hindus, then beef should not be banned.

    How can the sole custodian of all Hindus on the planet and beyond the planet deprive its own people of eating their food?

    If RSS wants Dalits not to eat beef, then it should accept Dalits right to choose a religion of their choice. Christianity or Buddism or something else.

  22. Andy Says:

    DP Satish – I find your arguement quite illogical and stupid.

    I am for giving leaving it to the people the freedom to eat the poison they choose to.

  23. DailyBread Says:

    Both beef eaters and gin drinkers are hindus ;-)

    @DP Satish

    Did you write that post after consuming a bottle of Beefeaters.

  24. Complex Says:

    I am a vegetarian. I follow the religion of “whatsinaname”. In my religion, eating any meat is taboo. Ban all types of meat, Mr Chief Minister. You will get a vote-bank of one.

  25. Harish Says:

    Its a well known fact that the sanskrit word “gau” stands for “ray of light” and also the “cow”. Originally it stood only for “ray of light”. Hence all reference to cows in Vedic literature should be only mean “ray of light”.

    “Verily the divine ray of light is the (real) food” is how it should be translated. Implying the spiritual light is the real food, and provides true nourishment. This is identical to the concept of “Manna from Heaven” of the Jews, and here again it is not some physical food that is talked about,but rather the spiritual nourishment.

    Later during the puranic period the word “gau” also attained the meaning of cow, perhaps because of the common folk saw the cow to be the main nourisher in a predominantly agrarian economy. Double entendres are common in sanskrit and is the peculiarity of that language. So keeping the time frame when it was written is important.

    Thus when Veda says that the “gau was imprisoned in the dark caves by the asuras, and where freed by the hosts of Agni, Ushas” , it means spiritual knowledge is hidden in the dark recesses of human conscicousnes and it is freed by (the worship of) Indra, Agni, Ushas etc..”

    But the secular scholar sees in the above words “dravidian cows in their pens being forcibly retrieved by invading aryan tribes !”

    We should never forget the “sense” in which words were used when they were written.


    Likewise the word for “tear” and “wolf” in sanskrit was the same. Thus occurence of the word “wolf” in Veda should always be rendered as “tear”, “tearing” etc. Perhaps in later days, the people observing the way a wolf consumes its prey, used the same word to refer to the wolf as well.


    Likewise the word for horse in sanskrit, “ashwa” originally meant “Force” and “Speed” , and later as sanskrit knowledge spread to a larger section(or conversely brahmins became dumber), this word was used to describe the animal horse, because they found in this particular animal, the characteristics the word ashwa originally stood for. But this often forgotten. So during ashwamedha yagna it is said the “queen should copulate with the horse”, but is that what is being meant? Certainly not! The sanskrit word “maithuna” means “coming together” “union” though later it came to denote sexual union. So reading the vedic verses in the original “sense” of the terms we have “queen should imbibe(unite with) the qualities of speed and force” so as to ably assist her husband.

    But there were kings in pre-British India who tried to get a (dead)horse to copulate with their wives!

    Foreign and Indian scholars forget these earlier/higher meanings and take only the later meanings and see that the Veda is full of animals and since they also find high philosophical thoughts in the Veda, state that hinduism is “animism transformed by metaphysics” !

    The Sun is originally described as Swift(Ashwa), but with the word Ashwa taking the meaning of “horse” , we find the Sun god depicted as riding a chariot drawn by horses. This is a classic case of Indians themselves imposing a later meaning on the orginal texts, but at least the Indians understand there is a deeper symbolic significance!

    The changing of word meanings over time is not unique to sanskrit. Many english words meant different things in earlier times, sometimes even had the opposite meaning. So when we read a English work from medieval times, we should use the meanings prevalent during those times to get the correct translation. For example the expression “no love lost between them” has changed its meaning so many times swinging between “there is love between them” to “there is NO love between them” that when we come across that expression in a text, we better check the time frame when it was written to find out if there was really any love between them or not!

    I hope these examples are enough to clarify the matter at hand.

  26. Madhava Says:

    All Veg high protein food contain enzymes to digest the protein.

    And, cows eat only grass, do they have B12 deficiency? And sheep? Do they have B12 deficiency? And, you want to eat their B12S?

  27. Somebody Says:

    I am a vegetarian and support vegetarianism. But I would not oppose any one eating meat, whatever it is including beef. The choice of food should be left to the people. I don’t understand why in our country government dictates or even guides the people what to eat and what not! It is funny that while the governments teach people about food habits, they encourage drinking, smoking, gambling etc.! What is required is good governance. Rest should be left to the people. Governments should concentrate on development of livestock wealth. Not ban this, ban that….
    The article is, however, totally childish, silly and lacks any kind of logic.

  28. Ashoka Says:

    Banning Beaf is a sin.

    Why should somebody dictate what should be on my table. BJP/RSS are totally wrong on dictating their view point.

  29. Anonymous Guy Says:

    Furious Telangana makes a good point about people eating dog meat in East Asian countries and horse meat in various places in the world, and compared it to beef eating in India.

    Firstly horse meat is not banned in the US – there are places which do serve it. I am quite sure dog is not served in most places. Both these are taboo meats in the US yes – but it is so because hardly anyone eats beef in the US. Not because a rabid and slim majority has seized power in a state and banned these meats.

    Beef is eaten by many people in India – including Hindus of the lowest castes. And unlike how various commentors are making it out here – majority of Hindus and Indians are non-vegetarians.

    And the number of those eating non-vegetarian food is growing – vegetarians are shrinking:

    “An analysis of consumption data originating from National Sample Survey (NSS) shows that 42 percent of households are vegetarian, in that they never eat fish, meat or eggs. The remaining 58 percent of households are less strict vegetarians or non-vegetarians. Over time there has been a slow shift from strict vegetarianism to less strict vegetarianism. ”

    So no beef eating in India or Karnataka is not like eating some taboo meat in other countries, a large number of people have been eating it for centuries and continue to eat it.

    And no majority of Indians are not vegetarian and the trend is moving towards less vegetarianism and more non-vegetarianism.

    Whether you want to eat beef or meat or beetroot yourself or not is of course a personal matter, which you are free to propagate. But think a little before you go about shouting support for all manner of bans just because your government has managed to sneak into power on the money of mining robber barons.

  30. Anonymous Guy Says:

    *hardly anyone eats dog/horse in the US*

  31. twistleton Says:

    @C – nice one!
    @ Harish – that is one interesting post

    For the record, people can eat anything they want even each other. Why is Hannibal such an intriguing chap? Because he strethches the limits of human reason and society’s notions of right and wrong. Drop your blinkers and see the world, it is an extremely interesting point-of-view.

    There are a lot of people in the world who eat beef. How many people will you hate? Even you ate beef, that would be too exhausting. :)

    Self-righteousness is as tempting as all the sins, and I’m not sure if it isn’t one too. :D


    there is an “if” missing after “even in the third line from the bottom.

  32. jobinmartin Says:


    What I told is a fact.Human’s cannot synthesize Vit B12, but cows and other animals can synthesize it from the grass they eat. Every being is different from others.

    Pure vegetarian’s develop may Megaloblastic anemia unless they procure it from other sources.

    If you ask nonsense questions like :Do cows or sheep develop B12 deficiency better clarify with a vetenary doctor, or do a blood test on animals and find out for urself…

  33. karihaida Says:

    please try opening a KFD (Kentucky fried dog) in USA and see what happens.

  34. Somebody Says:

    I read the full article only now. What an idiotic, stupid, childish, meaningless and funny article it is! If any one has not read the full article, please read it and have a hearty and roaring laugh like I had. Even the supporters of cow slaughter would bang their heads after reading this article. Even high schools students could write better essay on the given topic. The writer describes Devegowda’s dress, the way it is stitched and his having 100 rupee notes visible etc. How it is relevant with protest against cow slaughter bill is beyond anybody’s imagination. Oh my god, I din’t know ನಮ್ಮ ಚುರುಮುರಿ entertains such jokers. For god’s sake, please…..

  35. Bengalooru Haida Says:


    That’s indeed very informative. But I am still confused like hell about the core issue – is abstention from beef a non-negotiable dogma or creed (for lack of better words – dogma and creed may be western constructs, am not sure) of being a Hindu? Is it also an enjoined duty of a pious Hindu to prevent anyone from eating beef? I would be glad if you write on this.

  36. Furious_Telangana Says:

    A horse is regarded as a “companion”
    A dog is regarded as a “mans best friend”
    A cat is also regarded in some way

    Similarly, a cow is regarded as a “mother” to hindus.

    While the west considers eating a horse/god/cat as crazy, hindus consider eating cow as unacceptable. That explains why they want to ban it.

    But this debate makes me very sad. We should be talking about preserving and caring an animals life just as we do with a human life. Why is the blogger talking about his right to kill and eat an animal? This is really low life arguments you are putting forward. At least, have some respect for humanity and do not paint us as if it is our right to consume all animals as food.

    The west follows their own codes. We are not the west. Then why this attitude of monkey see monkey do? Will your actions eradicate poverty? Or will it further community tensions? Please think. THINK. Use your brain. It is still free to think.

  37. Anonymous Guy Says:


    No demand. If there was, there would be in every block. Unlike beef or meat in India – there is a reason people flock to fanoos or imperial or KFC or even macdonalds.



    Try getting the Americans to stop eating beef.

  38. Anonymous Guy Says:


    Sign this petition, since you are so interested in dog meat eating in the USA :)

    As you can see, you can only petition. Till the ban happens, chill out and get yourself a good hamburger.

  39. Shashi Says:

    All these three reasons are ridiculous
    1) Why drag a social problem into this debate of one’s personal choice of food?
    2) Vedas quoted out of context. Will the author change his statement if quotes from veda/purnarana of the opposite view are made available?
    3) Sounds so silly. Do they, the low caste hindus, even know the spelling of protein?

  40. Anonymous Guy Says:


  41. Mysore Peshva Says:

    Well said, Furious_Telangana.

  42. suresh Says:

    I remembered this saying read in some paper –
    If abattoir’s walls were made of glass, millions of people would go veggie overnight.

    Its old and sick cows that are sold off to slaughter houses. I don’t understand what proteins and vitamins you can get from eating meat of such animals.

    So many harmful hormones and chemicals are injected to these animals in poultries to make them put on weight and look healthy.
    Cows left to stroll in streets by their owners forage in garbage and what gets into their bellies who knows.

  43. twistleton Says:


    will you do a good deed ONLY because your sense of religious duty says so. But then, you cannot be selective about it. You will have to perform ALL the duties of a ‘pious Hindu’.

    But there it is, the crux of the matter. Religious duty is nothing but a set of codes to govern the morality of man. However, the parameters of morality have changed over time and geography. How will you approach this conundrum my friend?

    The wonderful thing about Hinduism is that it is perhaps THE religion that gives MAXIMUM space for debate and discussion, by simply acknowledging that no one person has been entitled to the whole truth and there can always be vastly different points-of-view.

    THIS is the tolerance Hinduism talks about. Sadly, this has been so misconstrued that today it stands for tolerating the other’s sins (as opposed to differences), assuming all the time, of course that oneself is the quintessence of a true Hindu.

  44. prasad Says:

    Finally it was Charles who declared open the CWG, not Our President. There seems to be some confusion after so much fuss.

  45. Bengalooru Haida Says:


    The core confusion still remains. So thanks but no thanks. What defines a Hindu and thereby how I secure a seat in heaven. If that’s not the case atleast a decent rebirth as a cow. I am tired of all these wishy washy answers saying how open my religion is, how non-dogmatic it is and seamless it is. What’s the use if I don’t know what needs to be done to be a good practitioner of my faith and thereby earn enough good karma?

    That’s the reason I am fond of this site and looking for answers. I know I am in right place. Because there are so many folks here who seem to have decoded the ultimate truth and have definitive answers for pretty much everything.

    Enough of openness, enquiry and endless pursuit of truth. We need clear cut guidelines on what to eat, what to see, what to read and so on. In short I want my religion to be a semitic one which quite unambiguously lay down rules for every single waking moment of one’s life. That’s the beauty. You would ask then why can’t I just convert to a semitic faith. Heck..if only it were to be that simple and non-controversial.

  46. twistleton Says:

    Go ahead and convert if its what you’re heart wants. After all your honest about your need for rules and strictures. I appreciate that.

    That choice is the luxury of a free society. Some of us choose to put all our faith in an institution and let better minds choose for us.

    And however impossible it may seem to you , some of us DO choose to remain confused, to be answerable only to our own conscience and not really bother about karma.

    See the motivation for doing good for some of us is the mere satisfaction of doing good, not the expectation of earning enough brownie points to secure a berth in that foggy place :) (it is foggy in all the serials)

    Like Shakespeare said: there are more things on HEAVEN AND EARTH than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    It is not unreasonlable to say that religion falls short of true divinity.

  47. Harish Says:


    That’s indeed very informative. But I am still confused like hell about the core issue – is abstention from beef a non-negotiable dogma or creed (for lack of better words – dogma and creed may be western constructs, am not sure) of being a Hindu? Is it also an enjoined duty of a pious Hindu to prevent anyone from eating beef? I would be glad if you write on this.”

    Sorry for the delayed reply. But in today’s world I need to concentrate on putting bread on the table as much as philosophy.

    As I said, cow is the physical symbol of the divine light and it helps the grosser sections of the population to be in touch with the divine concept. Not everybody is able to enter the divine state of existence, so we use physical symbols like cows to remind us of the Higher Idea. That being its purpose, a follower of the Veda, or the Hindu, is expected to protect cows, look after cows and not kill them. In ancient India, people were well established in the Divine Light, they lived all their life in the Divine Light, so there really was no need to protect the cow. So beef eating was common. If in the future, Indian society, attains to a higher consciousness and has a direct experience of the Divine Light, it is no longer necessary to protect cows.

    Similarly, in ancient India the horse was also considered a sacred animal and so we see that ancient Indian society was dynamic and prepared to meet invasions successfully. Also society was free from a rigid caste system due to its inherent dynamism due to the veneration of the horse. But once the horse protection fell off, and cow becoming more prominent, society lost its dynamism. Use of animals to represent certain qualities of God is common in Hindu society (thus Ganapathi is depicted as an elephant as he removes all obstacles), and veneration of such animals are necessary for society to develop such qualities.


    “I am tired of all these wishy washy answers saying how open my religion is, how non-dogmatic it is and seamless it is. What’s the use if I don’t know what needs to be done to be a good practitioner of my faith and thereby earn enough good karma?”

    Hindu religion has specific dos and donts and clear cut instructions to attain heaven and moksha. These ideas vary from one denomination to another (vaishnavism, shaivism, advaita, dvaita etc.), so you need to select a particular denomination that you find agreeable to your temperament and follow it. Hinduism is not anything goes stuff. In fact this hinduism itself is an artificial creation.

    It is not that hinduism or any one of its denomination is tolerant and allows people to do whatever one wants. Its the people who are tolerant. Hindu/Indian society is tolerant. You can choose to be an atheist, or a theist or follow any one of the innumerable religions. Just because hindus do not kill atheists does not mean hinduism is tolerant and accepts atheism. It is a strictly theistic religion, and just because the people are tolerant of those who disagree with them, does not mean the religion itself is tolerant.


    The grosser counterpart of the Asura is the Rakshasha. They do not have the capacity to block the divine light of the devas, but they attack the physical symbols such as the cow and take great delight in it. The Rakshasha is sub-consciously aware of the connection between the cow and the divine light, and so feels a joy in killing it. The aim is to completely erase in the mind of the people any symbol or icon of divinity present on this planet, as a first step to establising a society wholly based on satisfaction of the palate and sex, where higher principles play no role and refine/mediate lower principles such as sex and epicureanism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: