[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Non-duality
Thanks for your article, Parag. I've included my comments below.
> Subject: Re: Non-duality
> From: Parag Gupta <PXG111@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
> A very wise person told me once that there are three things you shouldn't
> discuss in public: Philosophy, Religion, and Politics! But, here we are
> discussing two of the three!
haha! And all this time we thought the sva-dharma of alt.hindu was to
discuss religion and philosophy! I guess we were wrong; the sva-dharma
seems more along the lines of just a place for announcing HSC
events. That's ok, even alt.hindu is going to have to listen to
"sarva-dharmAn parityajya..." Even the newsgroup has to give up what
it thought was its dharma!
> Number one before I start my argumentation, I want to say that I have all
> the respect in the world for dualists, for everyone must pass through that
> stage before even becoming advaita(nondualist).
Hmmm ... I'd very much like to see something to convince me of this,
some Vedic quote for example. You see, I suggest it's the other way
around, that one may first pass through a stage of advaita before
coming to Bhakti Yoga, which is a process that naturally requires
distinct identity. I have some evidence in this regard.
"AtmArAmAsh ca munayo
nirgranthA apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukIm` bhaktim
ittham-bhUta-guNo hariH" || SB 1.7.10 ||
All different varieties of atmaramas [those who take pleasure in the
AtmA, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of
self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage,
desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of
Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities
and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.
The name Urukrama used in this verse specifically refers to Lord Visnu
as Vamana. This verse shows that those who are actually atmaramas,
completely self-contented and liberated from all bondage, always
engage in the service of Urukrama, Hari, since this engagement is so
blissful. Some of the Atmaramas described by this verse take part in
the Srimad Bhagavatam -- Sukadeva Goswami, the Kumaras, etc. were all
liberated impersonalists but they all took to the service of Lord
Visnu. In the Kumaras case, they just smelled tulasi leaves offered to
the feet of the Lord and then became perfect devotees!
> ISKON is a very honorable and
> humbling society. I have read many of Prabhupuda's books which are a treasure
> of their own, and a few years ago was a strict vegetarian. And of all the
> supreme personalities I have definitely meditated and prayed to Sri Krishna!
I am glad you appreciate Prabhupada's books. Actually, most of us got
our first interest in ISKCON by not just seeing Prabhupada's books,
but more importantly, by associating with the devotees. Of course, the
books are the foundation of the whole movement, though. Anyway, thanks
for your kind words here.
> But, to tell every Hindu he/she must do the same is blasphemy!! To tell
> every Hindu that he/she must not eat meat/fish/eggs and must leave their deitie
> s for Krishna is even more absurd.
First, about vegetarianism, this isn't some whimsical ISKCON
concoction -- it's the word of the Veda. Who are we to disagree?
Of course, the Vedas do not totally forbid meat-eating. There are many
rituals prescribed for those who wish to eat meat. However, if one
looks at the restrictions, one can quickly realize that these
strictures are to make meat-eating so difficult as to be very
unpleasant. The sacrifice can only be done on a new moon night, away
from the town, with appropriate offerings and sacrifice to various
devas, and only certain types of meat are allowed (goats, lizards,
turtles, etc.). The Manu-Samhita law book declares that anyone who
eats meat, cooks meat, slaughters the animal, fattens the animal for
slaughter, etc. outside of the context of the Vedic sacrifice are all
guilty of sin. Capital punishment is even prescribed! So, if one wants
to kill animals for meat-eating (or eat animals killed for that
purpose) and still claim to be Vedic, there are rituals for such
matters, and those should be followed.
However, it's greatly preferable to do things according to the will of
the Lord.
"patram` puShpam` phalam` toyam`
yo me bhaktyA prayacchati
tad aham` bhakty-upahRtam
ashnAmi prayatAtmanaH" || BG 9.26 ||
If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit, or water,
I will accept it.
"yat karoShi yad ashnAsi
yaj juhoShi dadAsi yat
yat tapasyasi kaunteya
tat kuruShva mad-arpaNam" || BG 9.27 ||
Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and
whatever austerities you perform -- do that, O son of Kunti, as an
offering to Me.
The first of this pair explains what is an acceptable offering and the
second declares that everything done/eaten/etc. should be done as an
offering.
> Vegetariansim is not a Hindu trait, before Buddhism such a philosophy did
> not really exist.
I'm sorry, this one is especially not very convincing. Yes, the Vedas _do_
have prescriptions for meat-eating, but they're also so difficult as to
make them virtually impossible to follow. In contrast, the rules for vegetarian
sacrifice are easy and pleasant.
> . Surely meat does arouse earthly desires, but the key to life is moderation,
> If one thinks of God and eats meat does it make him sinful it is the mind that
> must be purified, and the man's actions in society.
> It all depends on personal development, if someone is stimulated into earth
> ly desires by eating meat and wants to advance spiritually then it is better
> not to take meat.
This is more of a Freudian psychoanalysis, not really Vedic. The Vedas
show that vegetarianism is the better way, and meat-eating is
troublesome. The Mahabharata says that meat-eaters will suffer no
matter what body they get, both in this life and the next. Meat-eating
is categorically listed as tamasic, in the mode of ignorance, and the
tamas mode is said to produce laziness, foolishness, and a short
life. Actually, modern scientists are just now starting to agree with
this ancient Vedic verdict -- health studies prove that vegetarians
have better endurance, less problems with cancer, etc. I need not
refer to the economic and environmental benefits of vegetarianism
as everybody knows them well.
> But, if one's not stimulated then why bother!!
Because, maybe one does not like the idea of killing animals for food
like the dogs and cats do. Even the greatest atheist of Indian
history, Charvaka, just said "eat ghee and be happy"; even he couldn't
imagine people acting like wild animals and eating meat!
Yours,
Vijay
