is drinking okay?

[hariharan1972]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

My son is a published poet and if you want, I can connect you two.

It will be my pleasure sir.

Thanks very much.

You have been too kind to call my scribblings as 'poetry'. I scribble a few lines everyday, first thing at my work to keep me enthused for the rest of the day.

regards

 

[happyhindu]

Thankyou for the wonderful post Hariharan-ji. Enjoyed it throughly.

I wud certainly never accept a priest who ate meat or consumed alcohol offering the services of prayer.

Now i suppose some may judge me, but then that is how i have grown up accepting the priestly class as; and it wud be very difficult for me to accept a priest who can live a live of pleasure, smoking, drinking, eating meat and yet performing homams.

For a community involved in religious service it is naturally unacceptable.

KRS ji is so right in bringing out the pointlessness of twenty percenters judging the acts of ten percenters.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari,

We are not the arbiters of talent (even though we think we are), but He is.

I'll send you a private message with details and subsequent contact from my son.

Regards,
KRS

It will be my pleasure sir.

Thanks very much.

You have been too kind to call my scribblings as 'poetry'. I scribble a few lines everyday, first thing at my work to keep me enthused for the rest of the day.

regards

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun Shanker!

I just quoted from Vithura - Dridhrastra Sambaashanai as told in our ITIHASA - Mahabharata!

Do you mean a person who quotes from our our Itihasas, is a insane person ?

If this is the case , you are questioning the sanity of our Puranikas, Mystics , Saints , in a nut-shell our entire culture. Because they all quote our Itihasasa to instill good qualities to the common men for milliena.

I think you are a bit too much carried away.

Did I said anything that you don't have a right to write your opinions - No , not at all you can write anything you like and you want. After all who am I? I'm neither a moderator nor a person to edit your post.

So you please continue.

Thanks

No hard feeling I am NOT questioning your sanity
I am very sorry if I hurt you
I just meant that I cannot read the mahabharatha and chalk the course of my life now
I read all the texts of all the religions and take what is good and practical and judge my self as to what I should do and what I should not
I am just saying that nobody in the right frame of mind can possibly follow what is written in the Mahabharata
actually what ever you quote from you like it or not is not history but myth
we don't read mahabharatha in history books
THe scriptures were lessons to people of that time when it was written and we should always look into matters in the temporal and spatial frame
I hope you get what I mean
Temporal is time frame what mahabharata told was good at the time and space when it was written
but now we go by universal consensus of what is good and bad as we all know that there a lots of people in this earth who are not brahmins and who are not Hindus but are good and wanting to be good and spiritual
Please understand that there is a difference between intoxication and just drinking alcohol

 

[arunshanker]

Mahabharat says Parashurama drank. An wondering if Krishna also drank. What is wrong with it. They were warrior tribes. It was allowed for them.

Sorry Anand Parashurama was a brahmin and they are certainly not a warrior tribe!

 

[arunshanker]

let me try to bring the focus of the thread back to it's moorings.

the concern of care5 is probably a reflection of the crossroads at which the brahmin community finds itself ;

on one side is the fact that brahmins cannot but embrace the changes in the society and we can no longer afford to live in islands of excellence. by this i am not for a moment suggesting that taking to the bottle is a change that we should adapt to but we should if required not hesitate to venture into a pub in discharge of our official responsibilities.

it is a fact that the social values re : drinking have undergone a sea change ; yours truly was once part of a group enjoying a brunch at one of the leela's celebrating our colleague's job offer at bermuda. part of our group was a heavily pregnant colleague, sipping 'sparkling wine' along with us.

sundays, otherwise reserved for more kozhambu and the likes was spent sipping several glasses of sparkling wine (on the house you see and hence the indulgence, he he ) and sampling the various salads.

pregnant woman sipping wine was probably an obnoxious thought couple of decades ago. not now ; not anymore.

i am of the view that is plain naivety to judge others by our value systems. our value systems are for us, others have their own and there's no rule that fits all.

having said that, i sense from the words of care5 that he cares about certain last standing vestiges of brahmins that distinguishes a community which for long has been known to be in religious service.

so, if one by choice has adopted the vocation of religious service, shouldnt he be true to it ? he better be.

a constitutional expert, obviously cannot disregard the constitution ;
a criminal lawyer swears by the Cr Pc;

so why shouldnt a brahmin priest or any other priest for that matter adotp a pristinely lifestyle, unwavering in his committment to the service of the lord and resist the temptations of the common folk.

afterall abstaining from liquour isnt half as difficult as being a celibate.

i find this argument tenable and not out of place.

so the need to abstain from the worldly pleasures of teachers, bag piper, christian brothers or a cabernet sauvignon should perhaps be decided by the chosen vocation and not merely because one is a brahmin.

i also recently read that the scientists are now starting to doubt the goodness of alcohol.

Alcohol’s Good for You? Some Scientists Doubt It

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/16alco.html

and here's my take.

Doubts have now been cast
On worth of hitting the bottle
Does it really do any good
As we run life at full throttle

Truth is still deep in the dark
Even as we unscrew next cork
Will it cause a temporary halt
To the next bottle of single malt

Will it send distillers into panic
Reducing Sales of cognac and tonic
Or will spirits show their command
Proving liquor’s inelastic demand

Scientists’ words are still not final
The research undoubtedly seminal
It may not have done much to rattle ; But
Caution advised, before the next bottle

A good poem a real good one
I have read this same poem in the forum Karuthu
http://karuthu.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3272&PID=94319
by whossane guess you the same person?
But let me say in the context of the thread
we are not talking about HITTING the bottle
but just drinking we are not talking about Alcoholism but the habit of drinking
What is more is I wud want the thread starter CARE I thing to clarify if he or she is concerned about all the brahmins performing pooja and drinking or just the practicing brahmin ( Purohitam) drinking.
THe later is of course not correct
Like we all know no where in the world drinking on duty is considered correct

 

[sapr333]

it wud be very difficult for me to accept a priest who can live a live of pleasure, smoking, drinking, eating meat and yet performing homams.

H.H,

If preistly class needs to give up 'worldly pleasures',point taken. Yes, all religions says the samething, and its good for the priest to follow it up first, and be a role model, in order to inspire the followers..

But mixing that worldly materialistic pleasure with basic food habits like Meat/Garlic/Onion for that matter even a sip of wine/beer without intoxication, doesnt seems to be a right point..They are not dining on Caviar or single malt 12 yr aged J.D!!..


As 'ArunShankar' put it in another post, the scientific medicinal importance of Garlic and the subsequent taboo . How about fish eating Bengali priests? Wont you visit Kaligat temple of Calcutta?

Yes, one can enforce/expect such strict norms on priests.But then, the world is changing & shrinking, and someday, you may find shortage of priests to share the goodness of Hinduism to the rest of the world..Im not sure you would be ok with that situation.

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

i hear there are also beef eating brahmin priests that go about doing their daily prayers for that matter.

I do not understand this:

But mixing that worldly materialistic pleasure with basic food habits like Meat/Garlic/Onion for that matter even a sip of wine/beer without intoxication, doesnt seems to be a right point.

there are regional differences, in what is allowed or not...i suspect it all came about because diff tribes had their own brahmins and each had their own ideasof what is permissable or not...

I agree food and drink has nothing to do with spiritual domain. there were meat eating rishis..

but the point is, they were at a stage where they were not conscious of what went down their throats.

We on the other hand are talking about conscious consumption.

 

[sapr333]

Doubts have now been cast
On worth of hitting the bottle
Does it really do any good
As we run life at full throttle

Dear Hari, just thought of asking this, since someone referred to handle insane in karuthhu.com

Is this your own intellectual property!! Just curious.... Take it easy!

 

[hariharan1972]

though i am perfectly capable of 'insanity', at the moment, in the absence of empirical proof, i would like to believe that i am sane.

and hence my handle in karuthu is whossane

and yes the scribblings are mine and i wish to assure you, chief sapr, that i am not doing a bappi lahiri or a deva.

i just replicated it here since i felt it was relevant to the topic.

 

[anandb]

Dear Arun, I did not write this. I actually replied to this.

Thx

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Sir,

Please if you do not mind, can you let me know where did Vidura say that.

I mean if he did say that, it wud be interesting. Since Vidura was considered a shudra, it wud mean a lot else in my own scenario of things, like a shudra giving out statements on how a dwija must live, etc.

Vidura - Dridhrashtra Samvadha is found in Mahabharata, Dridrashtra seek the wise counsel of
Vidura before the war at kurukshetra, where in vidhura advise the king to do the just to his brother's sons and avoid the war.

In that samvadha, he said this.
This samvadha is much celebrated as "Vidhura Needhi" by our people of all the varnas alike.
Scholars commit to memory each of these slokas, this is one fine example of how people of old treated each other with mutual respect irregardless of varna/jathi and lived harmoniously.

Thanks

P.S
Reading your last sentence , ( I think you are a victim of the propogandas by recent political parties... ). Neither a shudra is inferior nor a brahmana is superior,the dharmashastras after giving a
compendium of knowledge of what to follow and what not to follow explicitly says whatever left untold should be learnt from a shudra and woman.

That is for the aspirant who wants to understand dharma , what constitutes dharma and how to practise it, he must learn from a shudra and a woman to complete it. Where is the question of not heeding to shudra word? nobody is inferior nor superior. please make effort to understand this fundamental.

we are open to any source from where good knowledge comes.

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear all!

I seek readers to read carefully before they reply, the words are not mine, it is from the Gaurdian Diety OF DHARMA.

I didn't judge anybody , even if I judge that's not going to make any slightest dent.

I'm amused why nobody asked a crucial question...

Afterall a drinker just drinks , he didn't kill anybody but here the LORD of Dharma says a dvija accrues a papa equivalent to Brahmahatti.

If some percentagers said this, we can ignore alright, But in this case we can't dismiss , it was told by the LORD of JUST and recorded by none other than Sage Vyasa, through our beloved LORD Ganapathi. Which stood the test of time, and available to us till todate. How can one ignore this?

Let's be humble and make an effort to understand why it was told so? Could someone try first.

tnks

p.s -

AN APPEAL
For non-beleivers in Puranas and Itihasas, those who are opiniated that their drinking habit
does no harm to anybody nor for themselves, those who see controlled drinking as positive effect, those who see social drinking and drinking by pregnant woman as acceptable and welcomable norms which are the signs of forward progression of society, Inshort those who see the slow poison as elixir of happiness PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST.

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Sapr,

Vatsyayana supposedly was commissioned by a king to study the sexual habits of various people in various regions. He was a celibate brahmachari himself. He wrote what he saw, did not experience it himself.

But cud not help smiling at this explanation of arattai: one should understand the pshyique of that varna and one should set what is proper to them. Such kind of sensitivity is what distinguishes the degree of refinity in setting the social rules

You see there are guys who claim to have inherited sensitivity as per varna by birth. So they are the only people blessed with "goodness" or sattva gunam but others have none of it (by birth again) - for a long time i thot it sounded comical, later got used to these claims..

happy, 'comical' is very kind and tolerant view.

my take on this, it is ignorance, in a benign sense. a wise man, may attribute his gifts to God, but i think, will not attribute it, to the very narrow definition of caste/creed for these came much later into our practice.

incidentally, this is one of my takes on islam and christianity. they promise to guarantee heavendom to the converted, but leave their ancestors in limbo. i think, all of us come with this baggage of ancestors, whether we accept them or not, and in some ways or other, pay for their sins.

....

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu!

Reading the 2 posts , I preceive like you 2 are making a fun at my reasoning that I gave to Mr. Sapr333.

Am I inferring correctly?

Thanks

 

[arratai_virumbi]

Dear Sir,

Please do read your 2 post in sequence..

kunjuppu-ji,

i really did find it funny in the beginning. i mean it did not make sense and i used to wonder at the claims.

but then i have come a long way getting to know different kinds of people over the past year, talking, asking and sometime making the other person a caste conscious casteist..

i also wonder if Christ's ancestors went to hell bcoz they were not baptized..

every religion faces this situation of being in a quagmire where people question things in it.

blessed are those who are able to accept without questioning, like my mum. we never tire of 'irritating' each other.

Dear Mr.AV,

Just by wondering aloud if someone's ancestors went to heaven or not, nobody happens to be "poking fun" at anyone's religious beliefs.

Perhaps you did not hang out with Christians asking the same things and a lot-lot more on beleifnet - just by talking about it, they do not mean to offend. Everyone wonders at the religious precepts they have been handed down; and wonder what is so great about it, as much as the older people have made it out to be.

Nope you did not offend me.

Thanks.

See in the first one, you are HELL bent in the second you said heaven or not.

Well as far as i know , it is neither the souls are kept in some secret place and have to await for judgement day also called doomsday even to the baptized one - they have to wait in the Q.

these are the beliefs, they didn't believe HELL and HEAVEN happens the next day after death.

Does this clarify your quest.

The usage of words like HELL is very provocative , so I asked to you to exercise caution.

Thanks

 

[happyhindu]

Dear AV,

See in the first one, you are HELL bent in the second you said heaven or not.

See below.

Well as far as i know , it is neither the souls are kept in some secret place and have to await for judgement day also called doomsday even to the baptized one - they have to wait in the Q.

Wud be interested in knowing from where you got the idea of the secret place. I mean, how wud one know? Please clarify.

these are the beliefs, they didn't believe HELL and HEAVEN happens the next day after death.

Alright, its a belief.

Does this clarify your quest.

?? Did i say i am on a quest??

The usage of words like HELL is very provocative , so I asked to you to exercise caution.

See below.

Thanks

Sentence 1: i also wonder if Christ's ancestors went to hell bcoz they were not baptized..

Part 2: Just by wondering aloud if someone's ancestors went to heaven or not, nobody happens to be "poking fun" at anyone's religious beliefs. Perhaps you did not hang out with Christians asking the same things and a lot-lot more on beleifnet - just by talking about it, they do not mean to offend. Everyone wonders at the religious precepts they have been handed down; and wonder what is so great about it, as much as the older people have made it out to be.

You find this provocating?

If yes, i request you to try looking into yourself for something called edginess of the i-wanna-be-provoked-abt-everything sort.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu!

Reading the 2 posts , I preceive like you 2 are making a fun at my reasoning that I gave to Mr. Sapr333.

Am I inferring correctly?

Thanks

sorry arattai. i think you are inferring incorrectly.

i may jest once in a while, but knowingly, at no time, i poke to fun.

in this instance, i was serious. hope that is ok.

thank you.

 

[sapr333]

Looking around the recent posts, and the pattern of response, I think we are heading for another 'infestation', there by forcing the discussion to a grind-halt for few weeks..

I would request moderator Shri.KRS to train/teach/educate this New Member 'Arattai Virumbi' about the importance of using the tone of 'Engaged Dialogue"" in this forum.

Guess 'man of wits' took a reincarnation..

 

[kunjuppu]

Sapr,

i hear there are also beef eating brahmin priests that go about doing their daily prayers for that matter.

I do not understand this:


there are regional differences, in what is allowed or not...i suspect it all came about because diff tribes had their own brahmins and each had their own ideasof what is permissable or not...

I agree food and drink has nothing to do with spiritual domain. there were meat eating rishis..

but the point is, they were at a stage where they were not conscious of what went down their throats.

We on the other hand are talking about conscious consumption.

my cousin, who visited bali, told me of hindu priests there, who smoke cigarettes just outside the altar. responding to a request for personal prayers, the priest put of the cigarette, went in, muttered some words and brought out the arthi .. and meat is part of their diet too.... i forgot to ask her if the priest had poonal

 

[happyhindu]

av,

dear sir,



vidura - dridhrashtra samvadha is found in mahabharata, dridrashtra seek the wise counsel of
vidura before the war at kurukshetra, where in vidhura advise the king to do the just to his brother's sons and avoid the war.

In that samvadha, he said this.
This samvadha is much celebrated as "vidhura needhi" by our people of all the varnas alike.

ok i shall try to find that part in the mahabharata and read it.

scholars commit to memory each of these slokas, this is one fine example of how people of old treated each other with mutual respect irregardless of varna/jathi and lived harmoniously.

Thanks

p.s
reading your last sentence , ( i think you are a victim of the propogandas by recent political parties... ). Neither a shudra is inferior nor a brahmana is superior,the dharmashastras after giving a
compendium of knowledge of what to follow and what not to follow explicitly says whatever left untold should be learnt from a shudra and woman.

yes, you are right am getting colored (if i have not already) by the interference of politics and social propriety in matters of the faith. Which dharmashastra says the whatever left untold shd be learnt from shudra and women? If am not wrong, the classing of people in varnas based on birth was not existent during the vedic period, and women as teachers were rare in the puranic period when the dharmashastras were written.

that is for the aspirant who wants to understand dharma , what constitutes dharma and how to practise it, he must learn from a shudra and a woman to complete it. Where is the question of not heeding to shudra word? Nobody is inferior nor superior. Please make effort to understand this fundamental.

We are open to any source from where good knowledge comes.

 

[anandb]

Dear HH

Probably my last reply in this thread as I don't want to bore you and others with my words further. But I do appreciate your taking the time and patiently giving your view points. While the Blue is my original mail to which you had replied in red, I have marked my opinion in "Black".

My point is what are we trying to prove here by saying Shiva or Parasurama drank in those times. Does it justify our drinking in the present age? I can accept someone who says, “yes, I drink and what’s wrong with it? Than someone who says, those days even Shiva or Parasurama or Krishna drank so what is wrong in drinking. If someone does not have a complex about drinking or eating meat they would just say “I don’t find any harm in drinking or eating meat ”, pure and simple. I simply don’t find a necessity to drag Shiva, Krishna or Parasurama into this. These are elevated beings and I simply cannot find a comparison between what they did and what we do. I quote the Paramacharya because he is my reference point.

Yes am saying all this because some ppl can be sorta talibanical, like prohibiting this and that, all "based on scriptures". Am trying to say that hinduism accomodates all - irrespective of their diet practices. And also it is about plain curiosity about how the ancients lived.

Not sure why you wud say 'i do not want to drag Shiva, Krishna or Parashurama', but at the same time make only Paramacharya your reference point.

Hinduism is certainly a flexible system but there are still rules and procedures to be followed. A present day exercise for sensual gratification like drinking by normal human beings like us cannot be compared to Shiva or Krishna or PArashurama drinking. Ours is a religion with a deeper meaning in every act or doctrine. It cannot be such a simple comparison of acts. I have no idea if these gods or avatars drank so I cannot comment on it. I quote the Acharya because he is an authority.


This is kind of blasphemy. I don’t think the Paramacharya said prasada because it was the politically right thing to say. I think the topic is about brahmanas eating meat and paramacharya’s comment is on the same. I sincerely don’t think the brahmana ate only a pea size because, 50 others had to share it because the intention here is very important. It is one thing to eat a pea size because that is what a Prasad is but another thing to secretly desire to eat more but cannot because the whole village had to share it. I also did not quote fully what he had said. While in the Niruda-Pasubandha, only one animal is sacrificed, there is a vajapeya yagna (the highest yagna performed by a Brahmin) where 23 animals are sacrificed but still the performing Brahmin and the rtviks take only the prasada. In the Aswamedha yagna performed only by kings, the rtviks again take only prasada.

When did i say that paramacharya said something bcoz it was the 'politically right thing to say'.

You yourself as saying they consumed that wee bit of meat as prasada. What is blasphemy here?

Please read the whole of your reply. It indicates that possibly the Brahmins ate a wee bit because they may had to share it with others. That was not the case at all.


The very fact it was prasada for the Brahmins was the reason why it was supposed to be tasteless. It was quite possible that salt was added before distribution to others.

So it was possible that when distributed to others, salt was added, but the ritviks ate it without salt? Lets say, it is also quite possible they ate it raw, wud you say it was equal to a kinda cannibalism?

beats me how it can be equal to cannibalism. It is taken as prasada and not to satiate the hunger or enjoy eating meat.



This was what the Acharya mentioned about the misconception that all yagnas involved sacrifices which were not. I honestly don’t know if blood was used or kumkum was used. I think what is important is whether it had sanction in the Vedas and not if people performed them or not. The purpose of the Bhakti movement itself was to remove the needless superstitions and beliefs among people.

Yes ofcourse all yagnas did not involve sacrifice. I suppose you have heard of yagnas being offered in the mind as well.

Bhakti movement came later. We are talking about the intervening stage of vedic and puranic.

Adi Shankara was part of the Bhakti movement which started almost with the Sangam age of Alwars and Nayanmars. Since you were quoting blood, kumkum and Adi Shankara you were indicating these practices were prevalent in his times as well.

I did not mean you said it but relates to the fact that generally people justify saying they did this in the past, so why not now?

It did happen in the past. What is the point of justifying or not justifying something now. If a man eats meat and drinks once in a while, all in moderation, what harm is he doing to himself or to others.

I think the question is about a brahmana eating meat and drinking and not anyone.


Well, there are lots of good things that are now attributed to the Vedic society so I cannot accept the fact that man was uncivilized in thought during those times. Just look at the Vedas and the lofty ideals that it propounds. Though the four main Vedas and the Upanishads may be divine and not written what about the numerous commentaries written on them by saints and rishis? Animal sacrifices are part of Vedic culture not because man was backward in his thoughts and uncivilized that time. It was because it was ordained in the Vedas which also ordained that such practices should be banned in kali Yuga. The beauty of our Vedic system is it prescribes various ways of approaching as befitting the swabhava of people in that yuga. Thus it was meditation and contemplation during Satya Yuga, ritual worship during Treta Yuga, idol and temple worship during Dwapara Yuga and Nama-Sankeertanam during Kali Yuga. Such a system which dates back to tens and thousands of years back, I will hardly call as moving towards civilization.

When did i say ppl were uncivilized during the vedic times? And why this long explanation to show the beauty of a system?

Well, man did evolve from being "uncivlized" roaming in the jungles, eating raw meat, then learning to cook it (after fire got discovered) and moved a long way to where he is now. Or not?

And where does it say animal sacrifices are banned in kali yuga? If am not wrong the verse that Paramacharya mentioned said no horses or cows. Does the verse say no hens and goats?

I think devi temples are the ones where animal sacrifices are still made in the north-east, like a chick or goat a day; and distributed among many. I suppose the priests and everyone else gets that pea-size portion.

Just check your what you wrote “am not surprised animal sacrifices are part of Vedic culture (bcoz it was very early on in timeline when man moved to civilization)”. My answer to this was yes sacrifice was part of the Vedic civilization but not because the thought process of man was uncivilized. I left out the part where a quote from the Dharmashastra says as long as the Varnashrama system is practiced even in small measure in kali, the sacrifices other than cow and horse should be performed. As you see now the Varna system is now replaced with the ugly caste system so I really don’t know. I do agree with you about animal sacrifices still being performed in India.

Well, cow slaughter in any form in our land is a kind of sacrifice. It is to the UPA government’s credit that in the last 5 years India has risen to be the third largest beef exporter in the world.

Well, i do not eat beef, but have no probs with those who do. Am wondering where did suddenly UPA come in b/w here. Perhaps the ones who eat beef are still living in a different yuga (better yuga according to scriptures)?, while the hindu has long passed it and moved on to the kali..

Sorry, if you are a UPA supporter and got offended, I withdraw this statement. Well, as a Hindu, I do have problems if a Hindu eats beef but that is to me. Like someone says times have changed and let’s move on.


I meant “none existed” in the magnitudes you had mentioned. I know I cannot do anything to stop animal sacrifice or drinking or non-vegetarianism and that is not my wish as well. I believe it is a journey of the mind. I have Brit colleagues who have become vegetarians because they had been to slaughter houses and seen how animals are killed. Just google for “earthlings” and watch yourself. I don’t believe laws or anything can change anything. Ultimately it is the wish of the individual.

Did i mention any magnitudes? And i thot i said 'Nobody is supposed to be a glutton gorging on anything'. Everyone knows in those days slaughter houses did not exist.

Sure am aware of the dangers meat eating brings. But that my dear is a health issue. So far however, you were speaking on a scriptural basis, based on paramacharya's words, about the portion and all.

Slaughter houses did exist in the form of the “Kasaapu kadai” may be not as organized as one may find today. Agree meat eating is a health issue, it was just a ending note from me.

Thanks

 

[sapr333]

Dear Anandb, I think you have a valid point to express.. But, could you pls put it crispily.. The post seems to be confusing and elaborate,with all the spectrum of VIBGYOR, and I find it bit difficult to figure out. Thanks

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Anand,

Hinduism is certainly a flexible system but there are still rules and procedures to be followed. A present day exercise for sensual gratification like drinking by normal human beings like us cannot be compared to Shiva or Krishna or PArashurama drinking. Ours is a religion with a deeper meaning in every act or doctrine. It cannot be such a simple comparison of acts. I have no idea if these gods or avatars drank so I cannot comment on it. I quote the Acharya because he is an authority.

By saying that Shiva, Krishna or Parashurama were drinking does not mean there is an intension to compare with anything. That Shiva drank bhang is legendary. Mahabharat says Parashurama drank. Paramacharya does not contradict about drink and meat having being a part of the vedic customs in the past.

To me, its about heeding to this fleeting interest inside my head about trying to understand the past. Stuff like animal sacrifice, were not themselves conducted by what are considered middle castes today. They 'got it done' by what are considered low-castes today. There are other pointers to show that these pratices became acceptable to the so-called middle-castes.

In effect what i am trying to say is that it is most likely the ones we consider as 'low-caste' or 'tribal' today like sections of the paraiyars, pallars, etc, were part of the ancient (most probably rig) vedic tribes. Anything wrong with trying to understand the past ?


Please read the whole of your reply. It indicates that possibly the Brahmins ate a wee bit because they may had to share it with others. That was not the case at all.

You yourself mentioned the ritviks did consume meat, by quoting paramcharya.

Leaving aside what 'indicates' what, am telling it plain and simple -- consumption of meat and drink, as ritual practices, existed in sections of the preistly communities of the past. Neither did i say it was for gratification of senses or to gorge on it. Offferings of meat was part of vedic rituals. Soma was prepared by priests, and the recipe apparently was known only to the priests in the past.

This probably is the inability of the puranic brahmins to accept the practices of the vedic brahmins, since 'brahmins' that came about in the puranic period were influenced by the bhakti movement and in all likelihood followed practices that differed from the vedic ones. It is probably like having uttaramimansa expectations from purvamimansakas. Plus you seem to speak of all brahmins everywhere as one similar class, discounting each region's native practices; and the probable fact that each tribe had its own 'brahmins'.

You too mentioned abt bengali brahmins eating fish. Tehre is a curious genetic connection between fishing folk like mahishya and the members of the priestly class not just in bengal but in other coastal places too. It just means that these 'brahmins' were indigenous.

It may not be a good idea to compare these practices with currently acceptable social stances. All cultures evolve and start following what are called 'acceptable practices' during each time period for that period.

beats me how it can be equal to cannibalism. It is taken as prasada and not to satiate the hunger or enjoy eating meat.

i meantioned that salt was added based on hearsay. but you went on to mention that salt might have been added for distribution for others, but ritviks ate it without salt. So i mentioned that it might also be probable that they ate it raw (like sashimi perhaps) and asked (as a question) wud that be sorta cannibalism.

I did not say that it certainly was cannibalism. Nor did i say meat was consumed to satiate hunger or 'enjoy' eating meat. You are again applying currently understood 'accepted' practices in the ritual realm to the past.


Adi Shankara was part of the Bhakti movement which started almost with the Sangam age of Alwars and Nayanmars. Since you were quoting blood, kumkum and Adi Shankara you were indicating these practices were prevalent in his times as well.

Did i say no? Bhakti movement of expression of love, leanings of people towards oneness with god and discarding of ritualism, does seem to have come in b/w the vedic and puranic ages.

The vedic age was marked with ritualism. Blood and stuff appears to have been part of it, and yes it does seem to have survived in pockets in various places. The bhakti movement influenced these practices. Even now there are Devi temples still following animal scarifice as blood offering in the northeast. I think i gave one hyperlink on a temple that gave it up recently.

I think the question is about a brahmana eating meat and drinking and not anyone.

To answere this, you might need to delve a bit into that 'who' were considered 'brahmins' in different time periods; and what were the acceptable practices in each time period for each region or tribal groups.

Just check your what you wrote “am not surprised animal sacrifices are part of Vedic culture (bcoz it was very early on in timeline when man moved to civilization)”. My answer to this was yes sacrifice was part of the Vedic civilization but not because the thought process of man was uncivilized. I left out the part where a quote from the Dharmashastra says as long as the Varnashrama system is practiced even in small measure in kali, the sacrifices other than cow and horse should be performed. As you see now the Varna system is now replaced with the ugly caste system so I really don’t know. I do agree with you about animal sacrifices still being performed in India.

When did i say man or his 'thought process' was uncivilized to be performing vedic sacrifices. Man moved from eating raw stuff to cooked stuff after fire was discovered. In the so-called scale of what historians measure as 'development' and civilization', yes, the vedic practices were ancient and probably came about as ancient as the times when man moved from eating raw stuff to cooked stuff.

Sorry, if you are a UPA supporter and got offended, I withdraw this statement. Well, as a Hindu, I do have problems if a Hindu eats beef but that is to me. Like someone says times have changed and let’s move on.

Am probably not a 'supporter' of anything to the extent of feeling offended. As regards politics, i know nothing, to be supporting anything, in the first place.

Slaughter houses did exist in the form of the “Kasaapu kadai” may be not as organized as one may find today. Agree meat eating is a health issue, it was just a ending note from me.

There are no indications to show slaughter houses existed in the vedic period. If there are any, i wud be glad for the references.

Thanks

 

[tbs]

my cousin, who visited bali, told me of hindu priests there, who smoke cigarettes just outside the altar. responding to a request for personal prayers, the priest put of the cigarette, went in, muttered some words and brought out the arthi .. and meat is part of their diet too.... i forgot to ask her if the priest had poonal

hi kunjappu,
i heard that the bengali/orissa brahmins /priest eat fish daily...
fish is an integral part of their feast/marriage...they called
kadal kathirikkai...just like egg plant/brinjal in our sambar..

regards

 

[happyhindu]

in some northie village temples there are priests who smoke bidis, while away time, until the next person comes to offer prayers at the temple. i suppose its to help cope with the cold climate there. they wear poonal.

but i think the bali ones do not wear poonal. in java, they have renovated a lot of temples very nicely. our guide told us formerly there used to be priests from india who offered worship at these temples. now they are considered to have vanished (merged) into the local population there, it is "considered" that way though there is no evidence as such for it. if it did happen, they wud be muslims today.