[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
From: srinivas@Glue.umd.edu (Nagulapalli Srinivas)
-
Date: 19 Jan 1995 14:28:22 -0500
-
From srinivas@Glue.umd.edu Thu Jan 19 14: 18:16 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Project Glue, University of Maryland, College Park
In article 1931 susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu writes:
>What he preached was that it was all "part of the same energy," or so I am
^^^^^^^^^
>told. Therefore, it is okay to eat meat. If Ramakrishna did not speak out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>against the sin of meat-eating, then it shows that he is a phony. The fact
>that he initiated people into spiritual life without telling them to give
>up meat is ample support of this.
Why can't you check for yourself what he told from his works than believe
what you are told, or what I tell?? Ramakrishna always exhorted to love
every being and recognise the presence of Lord in every being. And from
that I do not understand how you can draw the conclusion that he said it
is okay to eat meat. Do you mean to say he did not do a treatise on
diet-stipulations for the spiritual persons like making a table of do's and
dont's ??? I don't get your point.
>Only a brainwashed mayavadi would consider meat-eating to be inconsequential.
_NOTHING_ is inconsequential. Not eating meat and making a great virtue out of
it, is no less spiritual to eating meat for selfish indulgence. Spirituality
is not just what you do, but how you do it. Arjuna was asked to kill his own
cousin brothers and even his own Guru in the war-front, not just eating
hamburger. If you consider meat-eating is blatantly wrong without
consideration of intentions, then how is killing ones own Guru a less sin??
The point of Krishna is with what attitude and intention one does it. If
Arjuna kills his Guru in Kurukshetra not for his selfish gain, but to only
to support the righteous principle, then it is not sin. Similarly if
Vivekananda ate fish not to indulge for his sense gratifications but only to
survive his body such that it serves others, it is definitely not what you
are trying to make it out to be. You analyse.
: It is true that Vivekananda ate meat. But I will justify it by saying
: V. was after all a Kshatriya: Kshatriyas traditionally eat meat.
>No. This idea is one which emerged in Kali Yuga. Aryans of all classes are
>supposed to avoid meat, except possibly in survival situations.
Yes, that is exactly what Vivekananda did.
-Srinivas Nagulapalli
