[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Why thsi Ramakrishan-Vivekanand bashing?
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Why thsi Ramakrishan-Vivekanand bashing?
-
From: vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 26 Jan 1995 16:00:13 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Thu Jan 26 10: 47:38 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University
-
References: <3g3vl7$c84@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3g3vl7$c84@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
G. R. Vishwanath <vgr@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>eating habbits of his closest disciples. [But of these Vivekanand was
>an exception: "nothing can effect him"]. If it be RK did not actively
>preach vegetarianism to some follower, that only shows his wisdom. If
>you have been eating meat since your childhood it must be difficult to
>give up at once.
Yes, it is very difficult, because one is suffering from sinful reactions
from not just this life, but millions of life. Therefore, the proper
situation is to not just say "Don't eat this, don't eat that" as
the Vegetarian Society and PETA say. The proper solution is to give
a positive alternative. One must say, as Prabhupada did when he came
here "Don't eat this meat nonsense. Here, try these kachoris". In India
a sannyasi doesn't have to cook, but Prabhupada knew that he would have
to cook when he came to America since he wanted to save all the fallen
souls by feeding them -- not just vegetarian food -- but Krishna's
prasadam. Prabhupada actively preached vegetarianism from day one --
he required ALL his disciples to eat only vegetarian foods, which has
been a regulative principle of Vaisnava society forever. Feeding
people Krishna's prasadam is part of the Vaisnava tradition and it
is understood that by eating these items one will become purified.
All of Prabhupada's American disciples had been eating meat since
their childhood, yet all of them gave it up immediately upon taking
to spiritual life.
>Additionally, many RK admirers (like me) look at RK and Vivekanand
>as almost-God. From my point of view, these two are thus allowed
>liberties which you or i may not have. Krishna had 16000 wives,
>Sri Ram hunted dear (for pleasure!), do we hold that against them?
First of all, God (and I mean the _REAL_ God) is not bound by Vedic
regulations. Krishna accepted 16000 wives in order to accept their
devotional service, as they had all surrendered unto Him.
If RK & V are above Vedic regulation, then why didn't they imitate the
following activities of the Lord and His devotees:
1) lifting Govardhan Hill for 7 days with just one finger
2) sleeping on a serpent bed
3) showing a universal form
4) drinking an entire ocean of poison (like Lord Siva)
5) eating only poisonous snakes (like Garuda)
6) expanding himself into multiple forms
etc.
The fact remains that RK & V were conditioned souls who (like all of us
conditioned souls) tried to imitate God by lording over material nature
and thinking that "I am the controller". This statement isn't an RK
bash, but only an objective statement of the truth; we are all suffering
in this material world because of attempting to imitate God and we should
all try to get out by following the mahajanas, who always say "I am not
the controller, I am the servant".
>Meat-eating is not the most damaging flaw. RK would probably
>say that it is the ego, "the little I" which is the biggest flaw
>or obstacle. Inner purification may be slow and it can take a long
>time before a habbitual meat-eater can stop the habbit. If he/she tries
>to do so at once, the whole thing may collapse.
The false ego is the thing that keeps us in the material world.
Meat-eating is not an orthogonal issue, but rather a _subset_ of the
false ego issue. Someone with false ego may elevate themselves to
Indraloka planet by performing pious activities, but a meat-eater will
not only never escape the material world, he will only sink further and
further into the hellish worlds by accumulating gross sins. This is the
opinion of the Manu-Samhita and Mahabharata. (I am here specifically
speaking of meat-eaters who act contrary to the principles of Vedic
sacrifice, which was common in another age; however, meat-eating according
to the Vedas is extremely regulated and generally understood to be forbidden
in Kali Yuga).
>traditionally have been so. As an aside, i find that as a general rule
>people who have been veggies since birth seldom make a song and dance
>about their vegetarianism.
Here you are wrong; I can cite you several examples, but I will
only cite Mahatma Gandhi here. He was a veg since birth (except for
1 incident in his youth which he deeply regretted) and he published
a text called _Moral Basis of Vegetarianism_. Here are some of his
quotes:
"I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in
copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it"
"I do feel, that spiritual progress does demand at some stage
that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the
satisfaction of our bodily wants"
Note that Mahatma Gandhi insists that we _CEASE_ to kill our
fellow creatures. Even when Gandhi went abroad, he ate only simple
vegetarian foods.
>>We did not pick this fight. RK did.
>You indulge in all sorts of name calling. You have always
>insulted Ramakrishna and Vivekananda which prompted all this.
>You could have voiced your strong misgivings about them without
>ridiculing them.
RK could have voiced his opinions about the Vaisnavas without
insult, but he didn't. He disdained the Vaisnava brahminical
quality of humility, since Vaisnavas generally consider themselves
to be fallen souls.
We have the right to point out RK's failings and to point out that
his followers act contrary to the Vedic siddhanta. No regular Hindu
would accept (as Tom has said) that RK was God, and we have the right
to point out to the overwhelming majority of Hindus how out of line
these ideas are.
>You write so boorishly and crudely that sometimes i think that
>it must be some conspiracy to discredit ISCKON.
Please cite some specific examples. If I have written crudely, it
was only against a Vaisnava-aparadhi anyway.
>Belive me,
>once upon a time I had respect for ISCKON. I respected your single-
>minded Nishta towards Krishna and the scriptures. But your attitude
>puts me off.
Your disapproval of ISKCON should be enough to convince the majority
of alt.hindu readers to join the movement. We have based all our
arguments on the scriptures accepted by followers of the Vedas and
the traditional acaryas. In contrast, the RK types prove themselves,
over and over, to just fawn over RK and say things like "RK is God. V
is almost God" and so forth, without scriptural evidence.
>Vishwanath
>-vgr@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
-- Vijay
