Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
...


Shafique

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
---------
In the above statement, as per your quotation, it simply says that, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

That means Rigveda as per your quoted verses, did not say that "one should slaughter oxen and cows on the occasion of a girl’s marriage".

Thanks for confirming that the Rigveda does say that when oxen and cows are slaughtered at a wedding. Can you clarify who does the slaughtering and who eats the meat?

Why are you not addressing all the other quotes:

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.”

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Thanks for confirming that the Rigveda does say that when oxen and cows are slaughtered at a wedding. Can you clarify who does the slaughtering and who eats the meat?

Why are you not addressing all the other quotes:

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.”

Cheers,
Shafique

The essence of my point is that, there can be people who habituated to killing for eating for a long time inspite of continous preaching by God not to do it. But it is in vain. If you ask a chain smoker to quit smoking, he cannot do it all on a sudden. Like wise people become habituated to eat meat after killing.

God came as Bhudha to tackle this problem and introduced the concept of Ahimsa to stop killing animals for eating. God is very kind and animals also part of His creation and killing will make animals to undergo tremendous agony and pain. When we are slightly cut in our leg or hand how much agony and pain we are undergoing. Then what to say of slitting the throat forcefully and killing? They also undergo tremendous pain, agony and suffering. People enjoy the meat in the dinning room, but the cruelty which resulted in that meat is very huge, and slowly should be curtailed and eliminated...

But we are not discussing the essence of your point which is now becoming more clearer that it is nothing more than just your own opinion which you are entitled to ofcourse but trying to guise it as some holy commandment is what is misleading, specially when clearly your own scripture as quoted above do not instill such prohibitions.

Unless ofcourse you can prove that these verse have been altered through the passage of time but ofcourse you clearly make the point that the veda is as you say it free from pollution. So either you have misunderstood the scripture or you are trying to pass of cultural rituals as scripture even though the scripture contradicts your stance on this, so according to you, now you yourself are trying to "pollute" teh veda by altering its teachings or finally the translations are wrong which until now you dodged that question when asked so I assuming they are not far from the meaning of the original text.

desertdudeshj wrote:

Unless ofcourse you can prove that these verse have been altered through the passage of time but ofcourse you clearly make the point that the veda is as you say it free from pollution. So either you have misunderstood the scripture or you are trying to pass of cultural rituals as scripture even though the scripture contradicts your stance on this, so according to you, now you yourself are trying to "pollute" teh veda by altering its teachings or finally the translations are wrong which until now you dodged that question when asked so I assuming they are not far from the meaning of the original text.

That means Rigveda as per that quoted verses, did not say that "one should slaughter oxen and cows on the occasion of a girl’s marriage".

By the way, the portion which was said by my friend from Veda do not say to kill and eat. “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
The same Lord came to different parts of the world in different age to preach the same Divine Knowledge. All the scriptures of the world are the records of the knowledge given by the same Lord and hence cannot contradict each other. Yet we find sometimes that there are some glaring contradictions between different scriptures of the world. This is in part due to fact that the Lord taught the same truth in different ages and places in a slightly different way, so as to suit the culture and language of the people. This is only an extraneous difference. The essential knowledge is the same. Correct interpretation will remove the contradiction.
Sometimes there may be an apparent difference even in the essential meaning.

In such as case the inconsistency is probably caused by corruption of the scripture over generations. Comparison with other scriptures of the world will help in removing the corrupted portions in each scripture. Here it becomes essential to bring in experience as a prama?a or a valid means of knowledge. While comparing contradictory views in different scriptures, the view which agrees with experience or anubhuti should be taken as correct.

So what is it saying then, just slaughter a few cows for the fun of it on the occasion. That sounds like even a bigger sin than atleast eating what you kill for food. If slauthering a few animals on a joyous occasion for public consumption if not then what, slaughter and throw them in the river or something. Can you see how much sense you are making

We are not comparing scriptures of the world we are comparing "your" devine scriptures i.e the Veda's and what you have been going on about what they say.

And so what are you saying now that the scripture is now corrupted after going on forever about how it is not ? The only condratiction I see here is what you are saying and what your scriptures are saying and nothing else.

And for the Nth time you car just addressing only one quotation and trying but not very succesfully to dodge the other excerpts from the veda's

desertdudeshj wrote:So what is it saying then, just slaughter a few cows for the fun of it on the occasion. That sounds like even a bigger sin than atleast eating what you kill for food. If slauthering a few animals on a joyous occasion for public consumption if not then what, slaughter and throw them in the river or something. Can you see how much sense you are making

We are not comparing scriptures of the world we are comparing "your" devine scriptures i.e the Veda's and what you have been going on about what they say.

And so what are you saying now that the scripture is now corrupted after going on forever about how it is not ? The only condratiction I see here is what you are saying and what your scriptures are saying and nothing else.

And for the Nth time you car just addressing only one quotation and trying but not very succesfully to dodge the other excerpts from the veda's

The portion which Mr. Shafique quoted, do not say that one should slaughter animals....

So basically you were just happy with flooding the forum with "spam" earlier but when it actually comes down to discussing and explaning what you post your no good at it.

I notice that he hasn't managed to reply to any of my queries, which only leads me to the conclusion that he has no argument for it under those circumstances - case closed I reckon.

So, whilst it is possible to live a vegetarian lifestyle and cut out meat completely - it still remains a choice that needs to be explained.

What a strange and profoundly dumb argument.

Why would someone's personal choice need explanation or approval from someone else?

Clearly I feel the same with the (unconvincing) arguments Muslims give for not eating pork. 'Because Allah told me so' is not very convincing. But I certainly could care less about it and leave their irrational beliefs to themselves.

^This is rich, coming from the man who is convinced the earth can stop rotating for a day because the Bible says so, and coyly refuses to answer whether he agrees with his fellow US Christians who believe in Rapture (when they will disappear in a puff of smoke)!!

However, it is a strawman.

God telling Muslims not to eat pork (as He instructed Jews also) is an instruction that is in the Quran and Bible, and hasn't been modified. The Vedas saying that it is ok to eat beef and then someone invoking the vedas to say we should be vegetarian is hardly the same.

Datta invoked the vedas and said that any theory must stand the test of logic. We took him at his word and quoted the Vedas back to him.

He failed.

That is probably why eh feels an affinity towards him?

Cheers,
Shafique