Vidyasankar Sundaresan (email@example.com) wrote:
: Of course, Vivekananda was motivated by nationalistic and political
: concerns. Many of his statements were calculated to rouse the social and
: political consciousness of his followers. At the time in which he lived,
: it was necessary not to escape from the harsh political realities of
: British colonial rule. While this has nothing to do with his religious
: philosophy, at least give him credit for what he deserves.
Fine. I give him credit for being a great nationalistic and political
leader. There is nothing wrong with this. What I dislike is when such
people decide to do these things while making a show of being a Swami.
: Isn't it strange that you people who seemingly uphold the "reality" of the
: world preach an escapist surrender? On the other hand, it is the
: advaitins like Vidyaranya and Vivekananda, (who supposedly say this world
: is mithya), who are the ones who have tried to change the political
: scenarios of the times they lived in.
And that too, despite their interesting theories on how the world isn't
real, so what's the point? (sarcasm intended) Am I to assume that we
should consider sadhus who take up material activities in this supposedly
unreal world to be more virtuous than those who stick with devotional
service to Lord Krishna???
As for my philosophical problem with meat-eating, (and my supposed "pride"
in trying to uphold a basic Vedic belief) go back and re-read my earlier
posts rather than ask redundant questions which I already answered before.
I believe I pointed out BG 3.13, the fact that Krishna and his pure devotees
are all vegetarian, etc., and all that in response to people's queries about
why I should be concerned with a "Swami" who eats meat for pleasure (mostly
from people who say they aren't really defending Vivekananda...). If this
isn't good enough for you, then what is?