This is what I have objected to very strongly, and which makes me deeply critical of atheism as a position of extreme arrogance.
The next three lines are extremely objectionable. My village people (and all village people) are theists, and they are certianly not fools, nor scoundrels nor barbarians.
"He who invented god is a fool
He is propagates god is a scoundrel
He who worships god is a barbarian."
God according to me is a concept created for social control. most people today don't do things that hurt others, not because they are afraid of the law, but because they don't want to invite the wrath of the one above. They are afraid of hell. It is a refuge of the simpleton and the opium of the masses. It is utilitarian in conception but has become an end in itself, god as a means to human happiness has now come to god as a means to human misery. So, i don't think religion has a higher moral authority just because it doesn't call people fools. It is sometimes even worse, uses their trust to exploit them, at least the atheist brigade only self obsessed and not that interested in enslaving the world in the name of one god or the other.
It saw centralized religion as a tool to control the masses, which hasn't changed and the opposition to that still remains valid. That's why we are rabidly anti Hindutva.
As for people with disdain for common people, there will either be a communist leaning or western liberal leaning.
Marx on the other hand, lesser said the better.
You are pitting religious and atheists against each other, neither are saints nor sinners completely.
Who contributed to socioeconomic development is what matters!
within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies....We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self developing social state into never
changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell on his
knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.
By way of contrast, he went on to point out that while she was motivated by the "vilest of interests" and was "stupid" in the way she had gone about it, England was the vehicle for a "social revolution in Hindustan." Arguing that if mankind
could not fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in Asia, then England was the unconscious tool of history in effecting that revolution.
While Marx may have differed from the intelligentsia of the English ruling class in his emphasis, both in terms of England's motivations and anticipated outcomes, his views were based on similar assumptions about India's past and
present society. His main points in this article tend to reflect a view of India that had prevailed since the eighteenth century, when British officials saw India as the product of a long history of ignorance and desperately in need of the
tools of reason as defined by the Enlightenment philosophes. In the absence of historical sources that might suggest another view and Euro-centric in the sense
that it assumed an incapacity on the part of the people of India to make their own history, his writings on this question do little to enhance our understanding of India’s history other than to note the transformative nature of British rule in
There are probably 40 Divya Desams in our region from Chittoor to Villupuram, look at how Tirupati hogs the money, attention. That's the centralized religion I'm against.
This sort of centralized dietary diktats is what drives people away in the first place!
p.s.: I'm not going into the debate on meat all over again.
It is amazing to see people rooted in Bharathiya traditions which gave a exalted position to Ahimsa and vegetarianism debating whether meat eating was a norm.
Komakkambedu Himakiran Anugula 1) Cultural Continuity of vegetarian practices: saying so doesn't make it so. Classic centralised thinkin just like how the RSS said Muslims created Dalits.
2) Fertile Lands: India has 500 million livestock, which is actually less than earlier when 95% were farmers and had livestock. Did they have livestock as pets?
3) Matter of Principle: who defines principles for the majority; Each individual, family community defines this. no one else can. Masses don't go by political principles of the elite.
4) I have better things to do than watch 2 Western viewpoints argue and then infer what is best for us. My community and I decide that. Please find similar narratives in your community, not on youtube, especially not from the West.
5) Define Bharatiya traditions? Varnashram? Vegatarianism? Ahimsa?
Just tell me you are a card carrying member of the RSS and I will save myself some time!
Please go read the other thread. I've given enough examples from history, from collective memory of the people, from practices of the people. You harp on elitist thoughts as an argument.
I am out of this pseudo debate!
2) If we are talking about cows specifically, they were not harmed by farmers who maintained them in their farms and considered them important for soil management. Their hides were taken only after their death.
3) Yes, each individual has to decide on their own. If the individual abstains from needless violence, maiming and killing of animals that will lead to a more humane society on a whole. On the other hand if he chooses otherwise the society will be poised to go down a path of incremental violence and madness as history has repeatedly shown. That is all I am saying.
4) In the current globalized scenario, the meat industry functions the same way be it east of west. So their arguments apply equally to the subcontinent when it comes to recreational meat eating and hence has to be taken on merit rather than misconstrued notion of listening to only swadeshi ideas.
5) Any tradition from the subcontinent which is ancient, not foreign incorporated and time tested.
No I am not a card carrying RSS member, and neither is RSS taking a strong stance on vegetarianism. And I think RSS deserves credits where it is due - like their dedication to relief operation during natural disasters, contributions to the fight against colonialism and Indo-China wars, etc. I don't consider them to be pure evil like you seem to hold.
I have shown an equal number of counter examples to your points from old Tamil sources itself. So the argument that Vegetarianism + elitism is moot.
You may choose to ignore the debate, but I had to rebut the points raised.
2) I said livestock, cattle accounted for only a part of that. Assuming for arguments sake, that cattle weren't consumed, what about the other livestock? How come we had so many of them?
3) Humane! haha, defined by Ingrid?
4) Not really, please come and visit us. We will show you how meat is not an industry yet in India except for poultry. Local consumption driven only by community model. We work with every livestock group in India. Problem is for someone talking about Swadeshi, your reference points are all Western; quite the contradiction. As for your Swadeshi ideas, they themselves are clouded by 2 communities practices.
5) See above.
6) What examples? Didn't I tell you Tiruvalluvar was a Samanar? What about the Buddha who specifically told people not to kill for sacrifice but only for consumption.
1. My village is SC, meat eating and beef eating. They revere a 16th centurey saint Brahmayya gari from Kurnool, and try to make a pilgrimage there sometime once. His stories are part of the folklore. He has preached against killing of animals. They hear those lessons and stories in humility, accepting that non-killing is a kinder way, but also know that life has its own dynamics and continue with their practices with neither guilt or over-indulgence. The local Indian is able to accept the sanity, question foolishness , and incorporate teachings in a level headed manner. And yes, non killing in theory seems to be accepted as a superior choice.
2. Similarly regarding gods, I have seen them accepting both the vedic and local gods, and incorporating them into their existance in the most non disruptive ways. Krishnamurthy is a revered god, and I hear stories of the Bharatam from Annasamy's childhood, making it pre NTR days. The out of the way stories of the Mahabharatam they tell me even I have not known. And this is an illiterate community, and the stories have been passed down from elders to the younger people. That has in no way pushed them into vegetarianism. Or made them lose their gods.
Rural India has a very level headed attitude to religion, as to most things. Yes Hundutva could today unleash vast damage.
2) //How come we have so many of them// This is an illogical argument. The dynamics of cattle breeding and proliferation is different from humans. Europeans imported a rabbits into australia and within a few years they overran the territory and destroyed the vegetation. I am not sure how this is relevant to this debate.
3) We can look at local sources of knowledge and moral philosophy which state the same in an unambiguous manner.
4) I have pointed out several Indian sources which condemn meat consumption as an evil. My view is that if anyone wants to consume meat it has to be for survival only and not for revelry. The slaughter must not be carried out by a third person, but the consumer himself.
6) I have argued in your threat that Thiruvalluvar may not be a samanar based on certain reference in the Thirukurral. You are free to disagree. In any case you are relying too much on the 'Saiva-Samana' and the false 'Aryan-Dravidian' constructs to support meat eating. The former is exaggerated and both of locally evolved traditions with common roots. The latter has been disproved. I have lost tract your thread.
I turned vegetarian when I was 10 y.o after seeing a goat getting slaughtered in my Kuladeiva Koil.
1) What is this generalizing? what historical perception of meat eating as a vice? I give you examples, while your reply is generic statements typical of elitism.
2) haha, illogical? We have Indus seals with fighter cocks. Again, you have to refer to European rabbits in Australia which is something that happened in 150 years to define Indian livestock experience of 7000-10000 years?
3) Local sources of knowledge are with the communities, and that's what's reflected in the Milk vs Meat study. Just because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions, doesn't mean we have to dismiss the study.
4) What Indian sources? from which community? I gave you Buddha, what's your rebuttal to that?
5) false Aryan-Dravidian constructs, as handed down in palm leaf manuscripts by Saint Rajiv Malhotra? Leave that out of here. See you can claim not to be RSS, but each and every line of argument that you make reeks of their propaganda.
Periyar attacked the ideology not the people. If we can't understand that, it's a shame. His greatest victory is that, his critiques can only target him personally rather than his ideology!