[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: a Post to alt.hindu Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: a Post to alt.hindu Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
From: vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 17 Jan 1995 15:44:15 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Tue Jan 17 10: 31:52 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University
-
References: <3feif3$ll0@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3feif3$ll0@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
G. R. Vishwanath <vgr@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>When did Ramakrishna *preach* meat-eating? He only said not to
>make a fuss about eating habits when there were far greater faults
>present inside us.
Undoubtedly there are faults that are harder to conquer, but none
could be more damaging (and thus serious) than the flaw of meat-eating.
The Mahabharata says that anyone who is a meateater will suffer in
whatever body he may take birth. The Manu-samhita refers to meateating
outside of Vedic regulation as a conspiracy of murder, by which the one
who slaughters the animal, the one who pays for the animal, the one who
cooks, and the one who eats are all guilty of sin. Elsewhere it is said
that the one who eats beef will suffer for as many lives as there are
hairs on the cow, and so forth.
>It is true that Vivekananda ate meat. But I will justify it by saying
>V. was after all a Kshatriya: Kshatriyas traditionally eat meat.
Arjuna was the greatest Ksatriya, and he was told by Krishna "Offer me with
love and devotion a leaf,flower,fruit, or water, and I will accept it"
(BG 9.26) and that anything eaten outside of this sacrifice was just eating
lumps of sin (BG 3.13). This is all part of the ksatra-dharma.
>Also that provided V. with the necesary Rajas to carry out his social activities
>He felt that his countrymen were lost in Tamas, were physically weak and at
>that point time required some vitality rather than spiritual counsel.
Meat-eating is generally considered Tamasic. As both the scriptures
and modern science will tell you, meat-eaters become lazy and low
in endurance. Vitality is better gained by eating the traditional
vegetarian foods in the Indian diet. Animal protein can be had (in
a much more digestible and nutritious form) in milk and yogurt, and
animal fat can be had in ghee. This is in keeping with the Vedas.
>What religion can you talk to a starving person?
Even though India is generally one of the poorest nations in the world,
it has always been the most religious. The better question is:
What religion can you talk to a meat-eater, one who cuts up dead
animals to fatten his body?
>I think it was keeping this in
>view that he encouraged Tamasic people to get physically healthy first, taking
>meat if need be.
Meat-eating increases tamoguna, decreases lifespan, decreases
endurance and increases ones vikarmic activity.
>I think he wrote somewhere that a truly Satvic person
>would not be able to take meat.
Well at least he was correct about something, if he indeed wrote this.
>Why do you Krsihnaites make such a fuss about non-meat eating? You
>guys presumably do not eat meat, but you still remain narrow-minded,
>sectarian and abusive of others.
Speaking the words of the Vedas is not narrow-minded or sectarian.
Almost every religion has a vegetarian tradition at its heart, although
most of them have lost it by now. Early books in even Judaism and
Christianity require vegetarianism. There is a lot of evidence that
Jesus was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is the most nonsectarian
moral rule one could find in many such scriptures.
However, it is particularly disappointing to see Hindus, who are
supposed to know the Vedas and live their lives according to scriptural
injunction, living like all the other religions and falling down
from their high principles.
Yours,
Vijay
