Hindunet: The Hindu Universe: Buddha mentions cow slaughtering

Re: Sathyadevan

You have unfortunately touched a wound and that too in the medical sense of expression of one that is chronic and ulcerous.

What I can gather is the following. If anyone is in any way a threat to a generally accepted consensus and has even a remote possibility of transforming them even if through evidence, it is unacceptable. It would be interesting to note that for us who use this forum and therefore are deemed literate in the sense that we can read and write, it is not a general phenomenon to have a statesman-like approach to critical issues and appear to reject outright anything that comes even close to hurting us personally. If this be the case of the literary mass, then one can well imagine the plight of the illeterate and ignorant mass of our country who probably have no hope. This is akin to the expression, "When elephants fight, the grass dies".

There is enough evidence in literature that consumption of flesh was a practice including that of cattle. With special reference to the cow, in addition to what you have stated, ther are several more.

The question therefore is not whether this was indeed a practice, but why this was stopped and its subsequent practice incurred such abhorrence.

If we look at the time-frame of the Vedas, cattle were routinely offered as sacrificial objects too pompously and vigorously to allow the existence of a healthy and functional breed of animals and this practice was therefore slowly and systematically discouraged. What hastened this process with rather lightning speed was the relentless hatred towards the later invaders who were both cattle consumers. Historically, no generous sentiment could continue as generous and no emotion continue to be human once it was overwhelmed by the Hindu xenophobia. Let us face it, the extreme hatred towards the cattle killing invaders (there is enough of it already in this website) has been far greater than the reverence and love towards the animals themselves. The despicable and negligent state of care for our cattle on our roads and streets only too conspicuously exhibits it. From a moral perspective, it's a rather repulsive form of hypocrisy to worship cows while simultaneously starving them.

It is a well known fact that even as of today, animal sacrifice is routinely performed by devotees of Kali (an incarnation of Durga) in several states of the country, by offering an unblemished goat or buffalo that is publicly slaughtered by the single fell of the scimitar amid great reverence and gusto. Animal sacrifice is routinely practiced in Nepal, the only Hindu state in the world.

This is the diversity of the religion that has evolutionized over the centuries. A confrontation with its multitudinous features will reveal a mental world which will have a shattering effect on the intellectual faculties and quite a few would not appear to conform to logic. The more one studies the details the more one gets bewildered. To quote a single though appropriate example, after reading the Kathopanishad with a moderate degree in depth, one who does not impose ones own fancies on it and supplant it with a connecting thread out of ones imagination, will find the eyes to be dazzled by sparks of light not enough to light the room. To read the older Upanishads is still more puzzling. Even to read the Gita which has a distinct and powerful message, leaves an impression of inconsistency since it contains many references that do not merge with the central theme. And this is only in relation to the later scriptures. Such is the magnitude of diversity of this faith where in every nook and corner of the country that one may explore one shall find amazing cults and practices, each one with an attached sense of exclusive divinity than the other. One would find the mystic naga sadhu with a steel ring piercing his genitals to a commoner who worships the serpent in its live form. One could go on an on and in each one of these instances will one find a devout Hindu. In essence, any perceivable concoction of expression or practice of religiosity is good enough for one to proclaim oneself a Hindu. And it is this reality that we see expressed among Hindus! What could be the scope of the scotomic views of idolatry, worship in temples and veneration of the cow that represent not even a miniscule of the quantum of practices in general to prioritize them. One will find in this day and age wherein a segment of the most qualified among us prefer to ordain a living human as a God and pray to him and even refer to him as Bhagavan. Such living Gods are now institutions. Are these in line with either Vedic principles or the Upanishads or could the devotion of such devotees be questioned. They are all a part of the continuum of the faith at least in its present evolutioned form. I have asked innumerable number of people the question of 'What is it that makes you a Hindu' and I have yet to find a consistently valid response to it. To quote Sir Alfred Lyall in his account in the Fortnightly Review of February 1872, he provides a list of articles of worship at the time:

1. The worship of mere stocks and stones and of local configurations, which are unusual or grosteque in size, shape and position. (worship of the Shiva-linga and the Narayan Shila is done even now)
2. The worship of things inanimate, which are gifted with mysterious motion.
3. The worship of animals which are feared (not just the cow)
4. The worship of visible things animate or inanimate, which are directly or indirectly useful and profitable, or which possess any incomprehensible function or property. (worship of a tree, a stambha etc. or even a house of a deceased)
5. The worship of DEO or spirit, a thing without form and void, the vague impersonation of the uncanny sensation that comes over one at certain places (seen quite often among ladies who apparently go into a trance while praying).
6. The worship of dead relatives, and other deceased persons known in their lifetime to the worshippers.
7. The worship at shrines of persons who had great reputation during life, or who died in some strange or notorious way (this form is routinely observed in relation to the shrines of our departed political leaders)
8. The worship in temples of persons belonging to the foregoing class, as demigods or subordinate deities (we have quite a few of such temples that draw a substantial following)
9. The worship of the manifold local incarnations of the elder deities and of their symbols (quite regularly we see temples of particular deities which also display several others and one offers oblations to all of them)
10. The worship of departmental deities.
11. The worship of the supreme Gods of Hinduism, and of their ancient incarnations and personifications, handed down by the Brahmanic scriptures.

All of the above inherent diversities and variations have created the emergence of a myriad number of so-called religious leaders, each with his or her own way of the path to salvation. One may argue that logic, reasoning and religion are incompatible and therefore should not be mixed and I value that assumption. But to presume and that too with the conviction that any one form of practice or its annulment is the essence of this faith and superior to any other, is unfortunate and impractical.

The manifest diversity of our religion has been at the very centre of interest among the Europeans in general and a few of them have gone to great lengths to become scholars of Sanskrit and it is through their collective enquiry that we, the priviledged few, are able to understand most of our scriptures in general. Very few among us would possess the capability to understand the scriptures if not to explain what they really might mean. Hence, in our general expression in handicap we need to broaden our approach towards the faith and cast aside features which are rather scruples and focus on the spiritual dimension predominantly as this is possibly the only exclusive ingredient of our faith (even though post-vedic) that towers over the collective mass of all the other faiths and would surely find acceptance among all. There will be no need to either be apologetic or go on the defensive for this remarkable aproach while the others would need quite substantial degrees of justification in order to motivate people and hold them together by a common thread. Such a moral transformation appears to be the panacea to the general ignorance and widespread corruption and presents a desirable and possible unifying factor for this country under the glory of this remarkable religion.

Post Extras: