India, the mystIc East

[Vkothii]

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.

[S.A.M.]

Hinduism is a British idea. India is a country of laissez faire philosophy, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58358

[Vkothii]

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?

[S.A.M.]

None of these are Hindu per se. They are one type of Indian philosophy.

India has six major schools of philosophy, all of which have subsects. Yoga is one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy

[kmguru]

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

[Vkothii]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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.

[Vkothii]

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".

[S.A.M.]

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.

[Vkothii]

I'm having an opinion.

I know Indian culture is inclusive - I've known that for "some time", shall we say.

[S.A.M.]

Sorry, I'm trying to help, but making it worse. I do not think all Indians are pantheists or follow any one system.

[Vkothii]

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.

[Rick]

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

[S.A.M.]

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”.

[Vkothii]

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.

[Vkothii]

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?

[draqon]

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?

[Vkothii]

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.

[draqon]

well Vkothii...I have not killed an animal in my life...directly or knowingly for sure...

[Vkothii]

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.

[draqon]

well how could I report any feelings if I had not killed anything?

[Vkothii]

Ok, you just eat the meat instead? It's good that you don't have to kill something yourself?

[draqon]

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.

[Vkothii]

So, you don't offer a votive prayer of thanks to the group dynamic, then?

[Vkothii]

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.

[Gustav]

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!

[Gustav]

this dichotomy
this division b/t east and west
could anyone remind me of the factoids that make it so?

[Vkothii]

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.

[DiamondHearts]

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.

[Vkothii]

Islam is Abrahamic.
Christianity and Judaism are too.
Then there's Jainism, Zoroastrianism.
Buddhism is Vedic.
Hinduism is a label the British stuck on the Vedic practices they found in the Indian subcontinent.

[Gustav]

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]

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?

[Vkothii]

I think all religions are derivative, or variations on a theme.

[DiamondHearts]

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.

[Gustav]

nice
a change of tack

why?

[Vkothii]

Haven't seen much so far that says a whole lot more than: "religions are derivative".

[Gustav]

did you see mine?

[Vkothii]

The throwaway line about profit and survival?

[Gustav]

very well
lets play

[Michael]

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.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.

[Diode-Man]

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".

Still though, people need to consider the dream state they go through each night. In dreams there are plots which the brain creates, the events, characters, and situations, reflect some element within the dreamer.

A scientist would say that ALL of these things reflect the personality of the dreamer in some way. However, I believe that there are certain elements in dreams which are not created by the dreamer. External spirits and energies which can saturate the dreams of any person.

The very nature of reality is curious indeed: In the day, the sun shines, if you drop an object it hits the ground. The dream state is the balance between the solid and the un-solidity of the human consciousness. I urge you to observe your reality in a less scientific and more spiritual way. But in order for you to do that effectively, you must first begin writing your dreams down each morning in order to work your "dream memory muscle" into a stronger unit, and remember that you should only do this because you enjoy it.

[Vkothii]

I don't believe I need to believe that. I don't actually need to start writing down my dreams (or anything else).

However that shouldn't stop me from writing down whatever.

[Diode-Man]

You don't need to, but there is a certain enjoyment which comes from remembering the strange and often amazing situations the brain can create in the dream realm.

If you can remember your dreams and analyze what happens in them, you can further analyze yourself and sort out any fears or issues you may have.

[Vkothii]

Well, I can still recall some of the lucid, theta-type dreams I've had.
Very symbolic, and something that I keep thinking about - in terms of what it reflects, or what it had to tell me about myself, type of thing.

How to relate or recount a vision. Scriptures are full of these things.
Revelations - Daniel's visions, etc and so on.

[Vkothii]

Been wanting to have a rave about something that goes way back, and which, in India - which is really lots of Indias - but musically there were, still are, two major traditions or schools of music.
Ragas are something like fugues, or melodies that attempt to convey some sense of, or visualisation of emotion, of feeling.
Music is unquestionably capable of evoking such things in humans. Animal responses to music, and the different kinds we recognise, are varied. Most of us would differentiate between "sad" music, and "happy" or "playful", even "joyous", or "funereal". Other animals seem to be more ambivalent.

The two main Vedic musical traditions involve what is known as "made sound", it's the study of melody - harmony and rhythym. This involves such niceties as counterpoint - the notion that every note has another note that can be sounded before, with, or after it. So can any rhythm or pattern. It's all about how patterns vary as they are repeated - a theme appears, which "travels" through an abstract space, or visits varied reflections and inflections of itself, a musical curve with loops in it, derivatives and integrals over time and an abstract "listening space".

The science of Nada Yoga, includes the sounds we can make and the melodic "integrals" we can construct, and also sound that is "not struck" - an inner sound.
Ragas are the poetry that a Nada Yogi invents, upon a sitar, to convey the sense of listening to an inner sound, or chorus. Bells, chirping insects, gongs, birdsong, a singing or constant, slow sounding of a multi-timbred instrument - the inner garden of Nada.