Now take your one citation and opinions in your post:
1. Citation - Chandogya Upanishad: While what you cited is appropriate, I can question the saying there, because today, medicine does recommend one to two drinks per day for men, that promotes good health. So your sweeping statement that any alcohol consumption is bad is not correct. In fact in many western countries such as France, wine is looked upon as food and children are introduced at a very young age to handle it responsibly. As a result, it is rare to see drunkards in France, where as in countries where alcohol consumption is not part of the culture, drunkenness abound.
I only said chandogya upanishad says so. Whether people feel it is right or wrong they may absolutely use their own inclinations. So the fact that chandogya upanishad says so is backed up. If people want to accept what is said about relation between mind and food in our scriptures and re-emphasized by shankaracharya they may choose do so. If they want to be lead by western science they can choose to do so. I dont see what is the need for mentioning this as a statement I have not backed up.
n general families and societies with drinking have higher prevalence of lust, extra marital relations." This may or may not be correct. But this is the type of statement that would be challenged, because no back up is provided. I suspect you can not prove your statement.
It could be challenged , but at the same time it is backed by one powerful fact though it may not be advertised in science journals that is "apart from many islamic countries(may not be all) and south asian countries where there is significant low consumption of alcohol, to the extent that a major percentage of women dont consume alcohol, we all can naturally see lower extramarital affairs.while common observation may indicate this to be so, we can also infer this from the fact that if this were not the case divorce rate would have been much higher. The fact that divorce rates is significantly less than what is there in western society. Further atleast in UK.I have seen a report to the effect that drinking has significantly increased among women in the last few decades. The statistics on divorces can be checked up through reports available in google. There may be a hundred reasons for divorce not happening, but chastity(atleast among one partner) is arguably one of the most important factors and cannot be ignored"
This is a case of inference it can be contradicted but cannot be thrown away and ignored. If people choose to accept this fine else if you choose to ignore this, people can go ahead and believe otherwise. It is not unnatural to have contradictory inferences in the field of sociology even when the observation and source of data is the same. Take for instance the compulsive arguments on whether indus script is a written language or not.Witzel of harvard concluded from the same piece of materials that Indus script indicates that people of that region were illiterate. Iravatham mahadevan published a subsequent response to disprove this former view supported by some computer scientists in India. But case remains inconclusive.
he statement to the effect that arabic might have been influenced by India's ideas is just an inference because arabians themselves have acknowledged India's noble influence on them. It may or may not pertain to a specific habit that is anybody's guess." - Now any inference needs a foundation. So what is the foundation you have to infer that Mohammed banned alcohol consumption based on 'Indian' model? From what I understand not ALL Indians during Mohammed's time were tee totalers and even if they were, why should he have conveniently adopted this as against vegetarianism as well? Moreover during Mohammed's time, Indians were considered by idolaters by him and his followers and so it is fairly unlikely they would have borrowed anything from the Hindus. This just does not make sense to me.
Either you have not read my note towards the end, how my inference was made or you have chosen to ignore my observation as of no consequence. I clearly mentioned how my inference was made and that . there was nothing which I had to indicate that Indians influenced the arabs specifically in the sphere of drinking. It was purely my view based on the fact that arabians have acknowledged Indians for having civilized them.
Please refer to P..N Oak's publication - In his words "The text of the crucial Vikramaditya inscription, found inscribed on a gold dish hung inside the Kaaba shrine in Mecca, is found recorded on page 315 of a volume known as ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ treasured in the Makhtab-e-Sultania library in Istanbul, Turkey. Rendered in free English the inscription says:
"Fortunate are those who were born (and lived) during king Vikram’s reign. He was a noble, generous
dutiful ruler, devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time we Arabs, oblivious of God, were lost
in sensual pleasures. Plotting and torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our
country. Like the lamb struggling for her life in the cruel paws of a wolf we Arabs were caught up in
ignorance. The entire country was enveloped in a darkness so intense as on a new moon night. But the
present dawn and pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favour of the noble king
Vikramaditya whose benevolent supervision did not lose sight of us- foreigners as we were. He spread his
sacred religion amongst us and sent scholars whose brilliance shone like that of the sun from his country
to ours. These scholars and preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made cognisant of
the presence of God, introduced to His sacred existence and put on the road of Truth, had come to our
country to preach their religion and impart education at king Vikramaditya’s behest."
This piece of information above can be contradicted , even the view of noted historians can be contradicted, but it is not a source of information , that has come from a layman. It has come from a well respected writer and scholar, even though he is considered controversial. For that matter even Michael Witzel is considered controversial as far as his very knowledge in Sanskrit is considered. These controversies cannot distract us from the fact that both people are serious scholars. My inferences on drinking were purely speculation based on Arabs having learnt good practices from Indians and I have indicated much earlier that there is nothing specific to the activity of drinking, for which I have proof of India's influence.
I dont expect my views to be accepted by all, nor do I think they should be accepted without questioning. It is such loose statements that- I have no basis(no valid source information) at all for inferences I make is not correct.
I have already said why I dont consider teetotallers as necessarily better persons than drinkers. Drinking for the purposes of intoxication and enjoyment is not expected of brahmins who need to inspire others in good conduct.
However even human law does not give this much leverage to people. However extraordinary a driver may be, if he breaks the speed limit set by the law, the law mercilessly punishes the individual. There is no excuse that this extraordinary driver is less capable of accidents than a person who sticks within speed limits. In certain countries even a slight indication of drinking, caused by even the mildest of alcoholic beverages can invite punishment. People in such countries absolutely stay away from drinking if they are about to drive, I know westerners who do that.In certain cases unless there is an emergency, you are absolutely prohibited from certain simple things like accidentally tresspassing in a harmless area within the millitary zone.
We cant go back to vedic times, nor can we really prove or disprove how people lived during vedic times. But we need to be conscious of our conduct for the sake of the world and to set an example and this is sufficiently backed up by a verse in bhagwat gita which I can quote if needed.It does not pertain specifically to drinking but if we read the message it implies that it needs to be applied in all spheres of conduct, and abstinence from drinking is one of the easiest things in which we can apply this message. Even Bhakti Vedanta Srila Prabhupada was against drinking. In Srimad bhagwatam it is mentioned that at the cross roads of kali yuga, parikshit met kali purusha and gave him permission to stay in different places which included the places where intoxicants are served. You can interpret this as a symbolic message or you can interpret it literally. Either way the message is clear.
Our elders have shown the right way of living in atleast certain matters. I am sure every tabra here has come from teetotaller families even if it was as way back as 200 years earlier and even if it may be that there were a few exceptions in many families. Let us concentrate on reforming the right things , let us not throw away the good things we have inherited. Speak about widow remarriage, speak about sensible intercaste marriages, even speak of remarriage for innocent divorcees, these are really things to be thought of , which may bring good to the society if done in the right way.
If we really throw these simple to follow ideal rules , that have come from our ancestors, having moved so far away from the times of vedic rishis, we really dont need sanathana dharma. It then really does not matter then if we call ourselves as tamil christian brahmins or any other name you want to give to ourselves. Without the rules of sanathana dharma any religion is good as another and for the true seeker in that religion it can bestow moksham.
As our saints have declared that every religion contains the seed within itself to give moksham. I know ramakrishna preached this message. And I am aware of more orthodox saints who have preached the same.But if certain rules are followed , many people will be inspired to look for the right things in life.
Rules are not an end in themselves they are the means and the launching pad for more progress in life, true progress away from material bondage. Let us look at Rules from that perspective. Irrelevant arguments that "medicines contain alcohol, so it is okay to have alcohol even if there is no need and even if it may be for purely entertaining the vasanas of the mind." dont really help the society in staying in a path of rules that it can benefit from.
Sanathana dharma is surviving on one leg, let us not cut her last leg also little by little, by "that logic" which is likely to only delude our own selves .
