Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
I see no Shruti quoted, let alone the Vedas.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Friend, I will just quote the scriptures. You can choose to believe, ignore, disbelieve...whatever!
Padma Purana tells exactly how many species there are.
jalaja nava-laksani
sthavara laksa-vimsati
krmayo rudra-sankhyakah
paksinam dasa-laksanam
trimsal-laksani pasavah
catur-laksani manusah
"There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are 2,000,000 nonmoving living entities [sthavara] such as trees and plants. There are 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, and 1,000,000 species of birds. As far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species."
We can still do it. Human intelligence hasn't really changed over the millenia since we first evolved.In the earlier times, almost all persons would follow the Vedic way of life. The level of intelligence of people was such that they could memorize all of Vedās and pass on the knowledge to the others. Vedās are known as Śrutī for the same reason. It was only for the person of Kalīyuga (present modern age), that Vedāvyasa felt the need to write the Vedic knowledge, owing to the poor memory, intelligence, understanding etc. of the modern man.
The Jewish ritual of kosher eating is still followed by many, so it has not dissuaded people from eating meat at all, and I'll bet it didn't back then.This is the Vedic ritual of animal sacrifice. There was an elaborate process mentioned, needing to be followed, to be able to eat meat. Also, the person performing sacrifice will get only a little for himself. Major portion will get distributed to others first.
Also, if you see, the number of such sacrifices was restricted (to three in a year).
The Vedic method of sacrifice is so designed because it will dissuade a person from meat-eating. If a person has to go through an elaborate process for sacrifice, then distribute to all, getting only a little in the end and finally can do it only 3 times in a year...persons will get dissuaded from meat eating this way.
* This also proves something else which I said earlier - everybody in the earlier days followed the Vedic way of life.
Oh, please. I've long rejected the Manu Smriti as being anything other than the product of someone 2,000 years ago being frustrated that people weren't following what he considered to be a good life, and so wrote that book, subsequently attributing it to Manu to give it a false authority. From what I understand, it didn't really reach anybody, and was virtually unknown until the English discovered it and made it a big deal."Though shall not kill" does apply for meat-eating. As the modern man lacks the qualification to perform Vedic sacrifices to eat meat, meat-eating is banned. It has a religious context. What you are enlisting above are the punishments for irreligious acts. These are there for non-adherence to God's rules.
Please pick up a scripture - Manu Smrītī, and read. It is the law book for mankind and has all the punishments you have mentioned above, there. Please do not confuse being religious (not eating meat) with punishments for being irreligious. Two are totally different things.
Food for thought:
Manu, as per scriptures, is the father of mankind.
Mankind = Humankind
Man = Human being (English)
Manav = Human being (Sanskrit)
400,000 human species? There were never that many members of genus homo, and now, there's only one: us.
Therefore, that does not agree with modern biology.
Just to jump in quickly, I wonder if that is based on some knowledge of other worlds. Who knows how many other human(oid) species there are "out there"?
I know, I've been watching Ancient Aliens: The Series too much. It's like an interstate pile-up... you know it's wrong to keep looking, but you can't look away.
Ah, that comedy of nonsensical speculations. Vrindavana Das talks of "mental speculation", well that show certainly has a lot of that.
But still, "human species" should only refer to the homo genus, and not others. Aliens who happen to be humanoid is shape (which is, frankly, unlikely), would not belong to that genus. If that's what the author was trying to convey, "human-like" would probably have been a better term.
Quite true, human should refer to genus Homo. The thing is that many languages use one word for multiple meanings. Otoh, English for example, has a lot of loanwords that refer to one thing... cow, cattle, bull, buffalo, ox(en), beef; hound, dog, canine; pork, pig; chicken, poultry. Just some mental masturbation on my part.
Wait, wut!? Am I supporting Vrindavana Das!?
Moving along... :run:
catur-laksani manusah
manu refers to humanity, the etymology relates to manas - mind.
Monier-Williams is an excellent reference
We could construe this then as 400,000 animals with higher cognitive faculties. This may be closer to the truth.
We had some appear at work. A lot of people witnessed them, but then they disappeared suddenly. I think it was the phrase "Immigracion!" :biglaugh:
400,000 human species? There were never that many members of genus homo, and now, there's only one: us.
Therefore, that does not agree with modern biology.
Again, I don't arbitrarily choose to believe or disbelieve.
We can still do it. Human intelligence hasn't really changed over the millenia since we first evolved.
Back then, I'd wager that most people didn't memorize all the Vedic hymns, but only the Brahmins did, because they were the ones whose job it was to perform sacrifices. Everyone else would have been too busy with other matters.
The Jewish ritual of kosher eating is still followed by many, so it has not dissuaded people from eating meat at all, and I'll bet it didn't back then.
In addition, no, they did not follow the Vedic method, because they were not Indo-Iranian; they were Canaanite. Two completely different cultures.
Oh, please. I've long rejected the Manu Smriti as being anything other than the product of someone 2,000 years ago being frustrated that people weren't following what he considered to be a good life, and so wrote that book, subsequently attributing it to Manu to give it a false authority. From what I understand, it didn't really reach anybody, and was virtually unknown until the English discovered it and made it a big deal.
The type of literature the Manu Smriti belongs to, Dharma Shastra, was really common in that time period, and there are several other such books. It has no more authority than any of them simply by being attributed to a mythological figure who probably never existed historically.
That's not food for thought, either; that's just linguistic evolution. English and Sanskrit share a common linguistic ancestry(Proto-Indo-European), so of course some words are going to match, or be extraordinarily similar. Both languages retain putting an "a" in front of a word to negate it, for example.
The problem is that you are talking science (as infallible) and I am talking scriptures (as infallible). So, let us agree to disagree; rather than getting into a futile discussion over it.
I must heavily disagree. We cannot grow and learn if we do not question and inquire, which is what you're seeing in our discussion of what that one verse might mean. If we come across a piece of Scripture that we determine to be false, then it's false regardless of how much we may want to believe otherwise.As for 4 Lac human species; you are accepting from a bodily platform (Darwin's Theory), what is evolution. Scriptures accept evolution of soul in terms of 'consciousness'; from lower to higher levels, as evolution.
Four lac human species have been classified scripturally, according to the levels of consciousness.
As for the rest like Manu Smriti, Vedic sacrifices etc., you are accepting some portions/scriptures and rejecting other portions/scriptures. This is not the way to inquire into or to understand something. If someone is given a horse, he cannot say I do not like the head, tail and leg, so I will cut them off and accept what is remaining. It is no horse anymore. Similarly, scriptures do not remain scriptures & religion does not remain religion, if we take this approach. That is why, it is 'mental speculation'.
If only we could just get along, and chant the names of God, then that would be perfect.
No matter what material designations or qualities we have, we can always just put those aside and just glorify God! No matter what culture, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Glorifying the Divine is for everyone.
I was thinking of changing that from "as infallible" to "science is a more accepted view". However, thought the other person will understand through common-sense, the import of what I am saying.
Thanks for pointing out anyway...