Why Kerala has no beef with beef.

[Bitter Melon]

Now you are defining what is Dharma and Adharma. It is relative term depending upon situation. and You did not understand my previous post too. You directly put 'adarmi' tag on cow slaughters. Lord Krishna slaughered on cow once, so he is adarmi?

While it is situational, Dharma and Adharma can be easily identified. If it is not identifiable or clear, then how would anyone decide? Yes, Krishna in his human form did do some adharma too. He had to pay for it. Once in human form, rules of Karma applies, even if the form is God himself/herself/itself.

You did not understand.. They roam without dress, can you? they can eat humen flesh. can you?


It is illegal to roam without dress, so what is the action against them? Because we, including other faith's people understand their faith and accept it. The same way, understand and accept other's taste.

They are accepted and tolerated because they have been here and part of the logic and landscape of this country for thousands of years. Eating cows is alien to India.

 

[rockstarIN]

While it is situational, Dharma and Adharma can be easily identified. If it is not identifiable or clear, then how would anyone decide? Yes, Krishna in his human form did do some adharma too. He had to pay for it. Once in human form, rules of Karma applies, even if the form is God himself/herself/itself.

If dharma and adharma can be easily identified, there was no need for Gita upadesha.

If you believe in karma, then let the cow eaters face their karma in their life, why you are trying to 'save' them?

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

You did not understand.. They roam without dress, can you? they can eat humen flesh. can you?

It is illegal to roam without dress, so what is the action against them? Because we, including other faith's people understand their faith and accept it. The same way, understand and accept other's taste.

1. Naga Sadhu do not eat human flesh.
2. Naga sadhu live OUTSIDE society so they cannot and should not be bound by social laws and customs.
3. Eating human flesh is punishable by the law. Does not matter who does it. Most don't bother since there are more pressing problems that arresting a sadhu.
4. When you live in a society, follow social norms and customs. In India that is Hindu social norms and customs. Get it ?

 

[rockstarIN]

While it is situational, Dharma and Adharma can be easily identified. If it is not identifiable or clear, then how would anyone decide? Yes, Krishna in his human form did do some adharma too. He had to pay for it. Once in human form, rules of Karma applies, even if the form is God himself/herself/itself.


They are accepted and tolerated because they have been here and part of the logic and landscape of this country for thousands of years. Eating cows is alien to India.

there is evidences that earlier even brahmans eaten meat. Lord Indra eat cow meat. The warrior caste used to eat meat. References from Kalidasa kritis could be helpful.

1. Naga Sadhu do not eat human flesh.
2. Naga sadhu live OUTSIDE society so they cannot and should not be bound by social laws and customs.
3. Eating human flesh is punishable by the law. Does not matter who does it. Most don't bother since there are more pressing problems that arresting a sadhu.
4. When you live in a society, follow social norms and customs. In India that is Hindu social norms and customs. Get it ?

I worked in a news channel in Delhi long back and did programme about these flesh eating and recorded it. It might available in you tube. check it, programme name is like some 'kapal mahakal' or something.

 

[Bitter Melon]

there is evidences that earlier even brahmans eaten meat. Lord Indra eat cow meat. The warrior caste used to eat meat. References from Kalidasa kritis could be helpful.

No they did not. That is twisted marxist pollution of Indian scriptures.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

there is evidences that earlier even brahmans eaten meat. Lord Indra eat cow meat. The warrior caste used to eat meat. References from Kalidasa kritis could be helpful.

There is NO evidence of brahmins eating beef. It is strictly forbidden.

Kshatriyas hunted in the jungle and ate meat, not the mean of animals under his protection.

Kalidas was a fiction writer. I hope you know that. He was a poet in King. Vikramaditya's court.

I worked in a news channel in Delhi long back and did programme about these flesh eating and recorded it. It might available in you tube. check it, programme name is like some 'kapal mahakal' or something.

Those are Aghoris, not Naga sadhus.

 

[rockstarIN]

No they did not. That is twisted marxist pollution of Indian scriptures.

So Kalidasa was a marxist?

There is NO evidence of brahmins eating beef. It is strictly forbidden.


Those are Aghoris, not Naga sadhus.

Yes, stand corrected.

 

[doppelganger]

They are accepted and tolerated because they have been here and part of the logic and landscape of this country for thousands of years. Eating cows is alien to India.

They are not "tolerated" man. They are feared. People keepout of their way. And they have held right of first passage at the Kumbh since centuries.

Read the book "I, Aghora" by a famous doctor who lived among them for years.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

So Kalidasa was a marxist?

Kalidasa was a story teller. Not a saint. WTF is wrong with you.

 

[rockstarIN]

Kalidasa was a story teller. Not a saint. WTF is wrong with you.

So, isn't he dare to write something meat eating at those times if it was not happening that time?

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

So, isn't he dare to write something meat eating at those times if it was not happening that time?

He also wrote about Yakshas and Rakshasas ....... does that mean he met them too ? There were all kinds of crimes happening back then too, murder, theft, rape...even eating beef.

 

[rockstarIN]

They are not "tolerated" man. They are feared. People keepout of their way. And they have held right of first passage at the Kumbh since centuries.

Read the book "I, Aghora" by a famous doctor who lived among them for years.

I read quite a few references from those book and doctor in various areas. They have a distinct way of life and is accepted by the society.

 

[Screambowl]

If dharma and adharma can be easily identified, there was no need for Gita upadesha.

If you believe in karma, then let the cow eaters face their karma in their life, why you are trying to 'save' them?

the basic dharma and adharma can be easily identified and for this reason you have brain. Dharma does not mean religion, dharma means righteous!! Bhakti means religion/divine etc.

Dharma to help the needy, to save the weak, not to lie, not to theft, not to molest, not to kill unless it's about your life., etc.. what is there you do not understand about righteous/dharma?

that's why we say, when you are aware that it is right but some law does not allow you... ''dharm sankat mein daal rahey ho.''

 

[Bitter Melon]

If dharma and adharma can be easily identified, there was no need for Gita upadesha.

If you believe in karma, then let the cow eaters face their karma in their life, why you are trying to 'save' them?

Dharma and Adharma are universal, but level of human intelligence is not. Hence Gitopadesha is required. Because apart from their individual karma, it also becomes the societal karma. I get affected by their bad actions.

 

[rockstarIN]

He also wrote about Yakshas and Rakshasas ....... does that mean he met them too ?

Even if you write about yakshas now, not a problem. can you do it about any very sensitive say cow eating now? you will be attacked in no time.