• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I used to be a hindu

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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."

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

"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)
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.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
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"? :shrug:

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. :facepalm:
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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"? :shrug:

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. :facepalm:

Ah, that comedy of nonsensical speculations. Vrindavana Das talks of "mental speculation", well that show certainly has a lot of that.

But I know what you mean. I love having that series on in the background while I work on other stuff. For all its nonsense, it sure is entertaining.

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.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah, that comedy of nonsensical speculations. Vrindavana Das talks of "mental speculation", well that show certainly has a lot of that.

It's more like mental masturbation. :D

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. :D

Wait, wut!? Am I supporting Vrindavana Das!? :eek: :facepalm:

Moving along... :run:
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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. :D

Wait, wut!? Am I supporting Vrindavana Das!? :eek: :facepalm:

Moving along... :run:

No, no, that is a good point.

Knowing the Sanskrit words used in that verse would really shed light on the issue.

It seems that part is catur-laksani manusah. Based on the bit that Vrindavana Das gave, it's manusah that is referring to humans, and based on what very little I know about Sanskrit, I think it's pluralized, but I don't know what catur-laksani means.
 
Last edited:

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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.

That makes sense. The question then becomes, what would that constitute to the person who wrote that verse? (I don't have the Padma Purana, so I don't know what it's worldview is.)

EDIT: At the same time, come to think of it, the verse could be referring to primates. But the verse would be WAY off, then, since, according to this article: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_1.htm

How many living primate species exist today is not clear. The number varies depending on whether closely related groups are considered to be varieties of each other or distinct species. Some taxonomic splitters classify up to 350 species, while lumpers include as few as 190. Most estimates are in the range of 230-270.
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
But I LOVE Aliens!! Love, love, love them, especially if they are green.
Can we please talk about Aliens :yes:

:yes:


Maya
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
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:
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
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:

:D

:areyoucra

Well I'm one of those myself. I was thinking of the green kinds.

Maya
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
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.

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'.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
I had thought "Vedic creationists" were an extinct species.

Also, not that I expect this to be understood/appreciated, is that science never regards itself as infallible. Many, if not every, statement in science is false. But it's more true than all of the other known alternatives. Virtually everything we currently know will be superceded by greater truths.

This is what makes it science; an emerging, self-refining truth, or system of inquiry.

It is not a static prescription.

Insofar as statements, especially socially useful, actionable statements, about the physical consensus reality, science is much more accurate than most scripture, especially where numbers are involved.
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
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...
 
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.

TA0469.jpg
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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.

Very well... except that I don't consider scientific findings to be infallible. That would completely defeat the purpose.

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'.
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.

Well, anyway, we know where the other stands, and will leave it at that.

Hare Krishna, brother.:namaste
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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.

TA0469.jpg

Jai Jai!!

Unfortunately, the siren song of conflict is EXTREMELY inviting.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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...

Well, I get it now. :yes:

Science can provide answers to questions regarding the material world, but in regards to the Spirit, that's not something it can touch upon simply by its very nature. And that's where I turn to Scripture and the teachings of the Sages as the authorities on such matters.
 
Top