Conflict of interest...

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Here is an intelligent email someone sent regarding the McDonald's article:

 

I'm writing to ask a question about the news about McDonald's french fries

and beef flavoring.

 

Why would a believer in Hinduism (and the sacredness of cows, being dear to Lord Krishna) find it less than offensive to even enter a McDonald's? Cow's flesh is routinely shredded and cooked there. I would think even the odor would be an offense. I would have thought the prospect of someone choosing to eat there is a bit conflicted with the sensibilities that would make beef flavoring in French Fried potatoes a problem.

 

Your absolutely right. A proper Hindu, who is supposed to be vegetarian,

must be insane to try to buy food in a McDonald's. After all, it is

McDonald's, the number one producer of Hamburgers in the world.

 

The problem is that many Hindus who go to the United States stop following their religious customs. For all practical purposes they aren't actually Hindu by belief.

 

Sometimes when such people see an easy opportunity for money, they suddenly become

traditional Hindus.

 

If one actually believes it is sinful to kill cows, then why support it

by buying food from McDonald's. According to the Hindu scriptures the sin of

killing the animal is also had by those who even indirectly assist in the

process.

 

Even if there wasn't beef in the fries, the same hands and utensils are used

in the preparation process. In a place like McDonald's your food is bound to

have some contact with beef, even if you just order a piece of lettuce.

 

Thanks for writing.

 

J.N.Das

 

 

[Maitreya 0]

Yes the whole atmosphere of the place is contaminated.You can sense it even walking past these places.Hellish vibes radiate and hang in the ether.Not fit to enter just to drink water, even if it's free.

[Maitreya 0]

Patronizing such establishments seems to me to be a type of association, whether one eats the meat or not.In any case, the following is interesting and instructive.

 

TRANSLATION

“Actually we belong to the caste of meat-eaters because we are servants of meat-eaters. Indeed, our activities are exactly like those of the meat-eaters. Because we always associate with such people, we are inimical toward the cows and brähmanas.”Madhya 1.197

 

 

PURPORT

There are two kinds of meat-eaters—one who is born in a family of meat-eaters and one who has learned to associate with meat-eaters. From Srila Rüpa and Sanätana Gosvämis (formerly Dabira Khäsa and Säkara Mallika) we can learn how one attains the character of a meat-eater simply by associating with meat-eaters. At the present moment in India the presidential offices are occupied by many so-called brähmanas, but the state maintains slaughterhouses for killing cows and makes propaganda against Vedic civilization. The first principle of Vedic civilization is the avoidance of meat-eating and intoxication. Presently in India, intoxication and meat-eating are encouraged, and the so-called learned brähmanas presiding over this state of affairs have certainly become degraded according to the standard given herein by Srila Rüpa Gosvämi and Sanätana Gosvämi. These so-called brähmanas give sanction to slaughterhouses for the sake of a fat salary, and they do not protest these abominable activities. By deprecating the principles of Vedic civilization and supporting cow-killing, they are immediately degraded to the platform of mlecchas and yavanas. A mleccha is a meat-eater, and a yavana is one who has deviated from Vedic culture. [excerpt]

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 05-26-2001).]

[leyh 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Patronizing such establishments seems to me to be a type of association, whether one eats the meat or not.In any case, the following is interesting and instructive.

 

TRANSLATION

“Actually we belong to the caste of meat-eaters because we are servants of meat-eaters. Indeed, our activities are exactly like those of the meat-eaters. Because we always associate with such people, we are inimical toward the cows and brähmanas.”Madhya 1.197

 

 

PURPORT

There are two kinds of meat-eaters—one who is born in a family of meat-eaters and one who has learned to associate with meat-eaters. From Srila Rüpa and Sanätana Gosvämis (formerly Dabira Khäsa and Säkara Mallika) we can learn how one attains the character of a meat-eater simply by associating with meat-eaters. At the present moment in India the presidential offices are occupied by many so-called brähmanas, but the state maintains slaughterhouses for killing cows and makes propaganda against Vedic civilization. The first principle of Vedic civilization is the avoidance of meat-eating and intoxication. Presently in India, intoxication and meat-eating are encouraged, and the so-called learned brähmanas presiding over this state of affairs have certainly become degraded according to the standard given herein by Srila Rüpa Gosvämi and Sanätana Gosvämi. These so-called brähmanas give sanction to slaughterhouses for the sake of a fat salary, and they do not protest these abominable activities. By deprecating the principles of Vedic civilization and supporting cow-killing, they are immediately degraded to the platform of mlecchas and yavanas. A mleccha is a meat-eater, and a yavana is one who has deviated from Vedic culture. [excerpt]

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 05-26-2001).]

I'm not actually for meat-eating and animal slaughter,but I think its quite pointless to demonize meat-eaters. What exactly is the "character of a meat-eater"?Just because one eats meat doesn't mean that they are automatically people of low character.I've met many "meat-eaters" who are compassionate, loving and selfless. I've also met vegetarians who are selfish, rude and arrogant.

I'm not saying that meat-eating is good or that animal slaughter is justified, all I'm saying is that just because you eat meat doesn't make you a bad person and being a vegetarian doesn't make you a better person than a meat-eater. It doesn't work that way in real life. By the way, a very well-known German politician by the name of Adolf Hitler favoured a vegetarian diet.

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 05-26-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

Hi Leyh,

 

I won't argue your point that there are meat-eaters that are really nice people, and vegetarians that are jerks. However, I do want to clear up the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian. This is what is called an 'Urban Legend' kind of like the Kentucky Fried Rat, or the story of the Kid who died after eating Pop Rocks and drinking Coke at the same time. Hitler was not vegetarian. Its easy enough to search the web for information against this myth. Here is just the first one that I found that I figured I'd post for all:

 

It is a falsehood that Hitler was a vegetarian. This

subject comes up on the Net quite regularly. A few previous

posts show that Adolf Hitler was an animal-eater:

 

==== Post 1 ===================================================

 

[...]

According to The Rough Guide to the Czech Repubilic, every

time Hitler visited Prague he ate copius ammounts of the

local meat products. Therefore Hitler was not a vegetarian.

 

=== Post 2 ====================================================

 

All the indications are that Hitler was not a vegetarian,

in fact, it would seem, they don't come much more

carnivorous than him, as you will see from the following:

:

: Quote 1:

 

Richard H Schwartz (author of Judaism and Vegetarianism)

:

'Because Hitler suffered from excessive flatulence he

occasionally went on a vegetarian diet. But his primary

diet included meat. In The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler,

Robert Payne mentions Hitler's fondness for Bavarian

sausages. Other biographers, including Albert Speer point

out that he also ate ham, liver and game. Hitler banned

vegetarian organisations in Germany and the occupied

countries though vegetarian diets would have helped solve

Germany's World War II food shortage."

 

: Quote 2:

: Ralph Meyer (Jewish Historian)

 

'How can someone be a strict vegetarian and take injections

of pulverised bull testicles, as Hitler did? How can

someone be a strict vegetarian who ordered his enemies

"hung up like carcasses of meat", who urged the Hitler

youth to become "like beasts of prey", who said "it is not

by the principles of humanity that man lives, but by brute

force...close your eyes to pity...act brutally". Surely a

person who worshipped brutality and literally shrieked for

blood is the antithesis of a vegetarian.'

 

=== Post 3 ====================================================

:

: Hitler was not a vegetarian. His doctor sometimes

: prescribed that Hitler follow a vegetarian diet to improve

: his health. Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister, took this

: and twisted it to get people to think of the Fuerer as

: another saintly man like vegetarian contemporary Mohandas

: K. Gandhi (Mahatmah Gandhi). Gandhi, however, was the

: complete opposite in that even when his doctor insisted on

: him drinking beef tea for his health, Gandhi refused, while

: Hitler cheated on his doctors orders and only pretended to

: be a vegetarian, eating pasta stuffed with spicy beef

: covered up with tomato sauce (ravioli).

:

: Refer to Dinshah, J. (1974, January). "Book nook". {A

: review of Speer, A. (1970). **Inside the 3rd Reich**}

: **Ahimsa**, p. 11. [Available from AVS, P.O. Box H, Malaga,

: NJ 08328, USA].

Hope this clears it up. Take care.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[Guest guest]

In smrti texts that mention rules and regulations concerning diet such as Padma Purana and Vahara Purana there are interesting consideration in this regard. The smrti clears states that fruits, roots and some vegetables do not get impressed by any samskara.

 

That means that no karma may be transferred by these foodstuffs, that are always considered pure and not suitable to be polluted by any impressions. In other words, if one fry potatoes with some impurities like a slice of beef for example, the potatoes will never get the samskaras of the beef. Never. Only very ignorant people would argue otherwise. It would be the same as to consider Ganga's water polluted by a cow's cadaver.

 

However, grains would be contaminated by these impurities. Any grain stuff such as rice, dahl, beans, and so on would be serious polluted by meat or other kind of impure things, that would transfer their samskaras to those who eat them through these grains.

 

Smrti also consider that eggplants are the most tamasic foodstuff, thousands of times worst that onion, garlic, carrots and tomatoes. No one should ever eat eggplant not even in dreams. It is consider like cow meat, just like carrots. However, Gaudiya-vaisnavas eat eggplant and offer them to some Deities. In West, some Gaudiya-vaisnavas also eat carrots. No other group of Vaisnavas would do it, and what to say of smarta-brahmanas.

 

Therefore, if this lawsuit against the restaurant is to be consider as demand to avoid a transgression of Hindu's rights, no Hindu sastra will support the Hindu's lawyer. This lawsuit is to be consider only as a Kali-yuga's quarrel.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Maitreya 0]

Satyaraja,

 

On the carrots are like meat idea; can you or anyone else give me any logical reason why I should consider a carrot, meat?

 

Sounds like a superstition to me.

 

YS MC

[Maitreya 0]

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

In smrti texts that mention rules and regulations concerning diet such as Padma Purana and Vahara Purana there are interesting consideration in this regard. The smrti clears states that fruits, roots and some vegetables do not get impressed by any samskara.

 

That means that no karma may be transferred by these foodstuffs, that are always considered pure and not suitable to be polluted by any impressions. In other words, if one fry potatoes with some impurities like a slice of beef for example, the potatoes will never get the samskaras of the beef. Never. Only very ignorant people would argue otherwise. It would be the same as to consider Ganga's water polluted by a cow's cadaver.

 

So a potato is as pure as the Ganga, and even if it is covered and has aborbed beef juice it is considered pure?But a carrot, another root is considered meat, even if it has not touched meat.Too strange for me,sorry I don't mean to offend anyone, but this makes no sense.

 

YS MC

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 05-27-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

Hey Maitreya,

 

We actually had a similar conversation several months back in these forums. Here are a few thoughts I've cut and pasted from JNDas and Shvu from that time.

 

JNDas said:

There is one text called Hari-bhakti-vilasa which is basically a compilation from various smriti texts giving rules and regulations one must follow. There is one interesting injunction that states if one eats eggplant in a particular month of the rainy season one will go to hell. On the surface the rule seems pretty stupid, and there isn't any explanation given.

 

I have heard one explanation of this rule from a sadhu who says in that particular month of the rainy season the eggplants are infected with a particualr type of worm. And thus if one eats it, one will be killing many such creatures.

 

Those who have experience buying eggplant in the rainy season probably know how hard it is to find one without little holes in the side where the worms had eaten their way out.

 

Some of these rules are certainly only applicable to specific regions, climates, etc.

 

It would require a study to find out what is the purpose behind many of these regulations in the smritis.

Then Shvu said:

Some Jains do not eat any vegetables that grow below the ground. The reason given is that in the process of digging the vegetables out, several insects and organisms are killed. This is a possible reason for why eating carrots can lead to hell.

Hopefully this helps. Just remember with every action comes a reaction (Karma) so offer all foodstuffs to God and make it prasada.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-27-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

It would be the same as to consider Ganga's water polluted by a cow's cadaver.

I disagree regarding your interpretation of different types of food and the karma they carry. All food carries impressions. Some food, such as that which is boiled in oil, carries less karmic reactions and less of the cooks mentality. Others, such as grains which are cooked, carry heavier karmic reactions and more of the cooks mentality. It has nothing to do with the purity of the ingredient, but the process involved in preparation. Potatos are just potatos. Nothing sacred about them. If they become impure (not "unclean"), they can not be used. There are a number of ways this can happen. Of course a famous way is if they are seen by a dog.

 

The idea that potatos (or other foods) never become unclean or impure is too far right. And the idea that something carries no karma is foolish. Everything carries more than sufficient karmic reaction; thats one of the fundamental problems with the material world.

 

As far as Prabhupada's opinion, he advised us that if in preparation any cut vegetable falls and touches the floor, it should be washed and used. But if the vegetable falls and touches one's foot, it shouldn't be used. No special exception for potatos, or any other vegetable. Simple and practical.

 

From an academic point of view (and from a Jainist point of view), potatos are still alive when one prepares them, and could be considered "more sinful". But that word is somewhat meaningless as it is defined based on one's religion or faith.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So a potato is as pure as the Ganga, and even if it is covered and has aborbed beef juice it is considered pure?

This brings up another point, and that is, "What does it mean that the Ganga is always pure."

 

Ganga devi has the ability to manifest her presence within water at will, and withdraw that manifestation at will as well. If a factory is dumping industrial waste in the ganga, it is not that that water is pure. The presence of Ganga devi is withdrawn from that area due to the offense. That water is no longer Ganga, even though it is flowing within the same river. The smriti shastras also describe how long the presence of ganga will be manifested in a pot of water without appropriate worship. It is not that you take a pot of water from ganga, and it will eternally be ganga water. If worship is continued, it will remain as ganga water, but if worship is not performed, the presence will be withdrawn after seven years (this varies based on the container).

 

Even in the ganga itself, those rivers that join with ganga are considered holy, but those rivers which branch from ganga are not.

[Guest guest]

>> I disagree regarding your interpretation of different types of food and the karma they carry. All food carries impressions.

 

Sorry, but we are not posting our personal opinion on that subject matter, but smrti texts info. Fruits, roots, milk and some vegetables are considers as 'non-food' by smrti, and definitively not suitable to carry any samskaras.

 

To corroborate this thesis, Vahara Purana points out that Indrajit (Ravana's son) had received a boon that he would be immortal-like. Only someone who would be able to fast for 12 years would kill him. As no one is able to fast for 12 years he considered himself immortal. But Laksamana was only taking roots, fruits, water and some vegetables for more than 12 years when he met Indrajit. As he was technically fasting during this time, so he could kill Meghanada.

 

The example given by Maitreya is quite different than the restaurant case. Potatoes boiled with meat are carrying meat juice. In that case you are eating meat with potatoes, not really potatoes.

 

Obviously smrti are not considering potatoes and other foodstuff as prasada, that is always purifying and sacred, even if mixed with meat.

 

Regarding carrots, red dahl and eggplants, some smrti states that once a demon has transformed himself into a calf (Aristasura) and Sri Hari has killed him. The flesh of this demons has transformed into carrots, his blood into red dahl and his marrow and viscera into eggplant. In our branch of Gaudiya-matha (Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti) carrots and red dahl are not allowed. Eggplants are allowed due Sri Mahaprabhu's special consideration in that case, as He used to accept them.

 

But some Deities before Sri Mahaprabhu's time never accept these items. The Puranic list of forbidden vegetables also includes radish, cabbage, collard greens, lettuce, cauliflower, bell pepper, chili, asparagus, and more than 50 other vegetables including tomatoes.

 

Actually the smrti consider pure white onions and garlic and ban blue ones. Not all onions and garlic are forbidden.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Sorry, but we are not posting our personal opinion on that subject matter, but smrti texts info.

I am familiar with smriti texts, so I invite you to cite your references. It is a bad habit to always claim "this is not my opinion, it is all in the shastras" but to never cite the source. It certainly is your opinion, and I invite you to disprove me.

 

Please cite the smriti text that says potatos carry no karmic reactions and are eternally pure like the ganga.

 

To corroborate this thesis, Vahara Purana points out that Indrajit (Ravana's son) had received a boon that he would be immortal-like. Only someone who would be able to fast for 12 years would kill him. As no one is able to fast for 12 years he considered himself immortal. But Laksamana was only taking roots, fruits, water and some vegetables for more than 12 years when he met Indrajit. As he was technically fasting during this time, so he could kill Meghanada.

Of course, don't forget your prior claim that they ate deer meat as well. Regardless, the point is not wether drinking water is fasting or not fasting, or whether eating roots is fasting or not fasting. This story is completely unrelated to this topic. I am interested in a verse from smriti that says potatos are eternally pure like the ganga, and even if the touch beef are to be considered pure and without karmic influence.

 

The example given by Maitreya is quite different than the restaurant case. Potatoes boiled with meat are carrying meat juice. In that case you are eating meat with potatoes, not really potatoes.

But the same smritis say an area of 64 miles is consider impure if go-hatya has occured... but wait, those french fries over there are still pure.

 

Regarding carrots, red dahl and eggplants, some smrti states that once a demon has transformed himself into a calf (Aristasura) and Sri Hari has killed him. The flesh of this demons has transformed into carrots, his blood into red dahl and his marrow and viscera into eggplant.

 

Perhaps you have a different version of that text. Eggplants have not been mentioned in any of the texts I have seen this story in. It has always referred to onions.

 

The Puranic list of forbidden vegetables also includes radish, cabbage, collard greens, lettuce, cauliflower, bell pepper, chili, asparagus, and more than 50 other vegetables including tomatoes.

Sorry, but half of those items were introduced in India by the British and Portuguese. Perhaps your basing this on rumor, or anugatya, or whatever you call it.

 

[Guest guest]

But the same smritis say an area of 64 miles is consider impure if go-hatya has occured... but wait, those french fries over there are still pure.

 

So, what they are complying? If everything is impure in an area of 64 miles were go-hatya has occurred, there is no pure place in the world in Kali-yuga, as all sastras state.

 

Therefore what kind of vegetarianism one is following? Every foodstuff is already contaminated by go-hatya and many other sins, there is no pure food supply.

 

And if you argue that the lists of Padma Purana and Vahara Purana that include many of the 'mleccha' vegetables are spurious because these vegetables were introduced by mlecchas, them you are corroborating the thesis that most of these texts are only newly interpolations. So, why one should follow any list?

 

Vegetarianism may be consider as a karmic dharma. Sri Krsna in Gita 18.66 has given another option to those who wants to enter into bhakti-marga: sarva-dharma parityajya / mam ekam saranam vraja/ aham tvam sarva-papebhyo / moksayisyami ma sucah.

 

He is stating that one should abandon all kind of dharma, that includes 4 regulative principles of karma-yoga and simply surrender him... This is the entrance door of bhakti.

 

If one is linking ahimsa with bhakti he is actually following sanga-misra-bhakti. He imagines that he may produce bhakti due his practices of the by-products of bhakti. Ahimsa, celibacy, cleanliness, truthfulness, and so on are the consequences of the presence of bhakti in one heart, and not the cause of bhakti.

 

Bhakti have no material cause, if one is thinking that she is caused by her by-products sooner or later he will become frustrated in his endeavor. He will never attain bhakti by any kind of sadhana. This is kind of bhakti is called misra-bhakti or polluted bhakti.

 

Did Sri Hari ever has rejected some one who seek after His shelter? Being him veg or non-veg? Demon or devata?

 

We consider that vegetarianism, non-intoxication and so on are only principles of sadacara. Instructions given by guru that may be different in a particular place, time, and circumstances. Bhakti can only be transferred to one's heart by sadhu-sanga, and nothing else. Countless sastras say this truth. If one is follow proper sadacara he may have his access to sadhu-sanga somewhat facilitated. But sadacara is not exactly the cause of bhakti.

 

You are only being intolerant with non-vegetarian people and are practicing himsa instead of ahimsa with this kind of futile proselytism.

 

Harinama yajña is the Yuga-dharma and not ahimsa or vegetarianism. No one has ever attained Sri Hari's bhakti only due his vegetarianism.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

Is Vegetarianism the cause of Bhakti?

 

In Caitanya-caritamata, we see the instructions that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

gave to Srila Rupa Goswami on suddha-bhakti. Specifically on how to distingue upasakha (unwanted creepers) that grow with the bhakti-lata (the creeper of devotional service) and may cause its destruction:

 

kintu yadi latara sange uthe `upasakha'

bhukti-mukti-vancha, yata asankhya tara lekha

 

"Sometimes unwanted creepers, such as the creepers of desires for material enjoyment and liberation from the material world, grow along with the creeper of devotionaI service. The varieties of such unwanted creepers are unlimited. (Madhya 19.158)

 

seka-jala pana upasakha badi' yaya

stabdha hana mula-sakha badite na paya

 

"If one does not distinguish between the bhakti-lata creeper and the other creepers, the sprinkling of water is misused because the other creepers are nourished while the bhakti-lata creeper is curtailed.(Madhya 19.160)

 

prathamei upasakhara karaye chedana

tabe mula-sakha badi' yaya vrndavana

 

"As soon as an intelligent devotee sees an unwanted creeper growing beside the original creeper, he must cut it down instantly. Then the real creeper of bhakti-lata-bija grows nicely, returns home, back to Godhead, and seeks shelter under the lotus feet of Krsna.(Madhya 19.161)

 

PURPORT by Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami: "If one is misled by unwanted creepers and is victimized, he cannot make progress back to Godhead. Rather, he remains within the material world and engages in activities having nothing to do with pure devotional service. Such a person may be elevated to the higher planetary systems, but because he remains within the material world, he is subjected to the threefold material miseries."

 

And Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, in his Bhakti-tattva-viveka (The Truth About Bhakti) explains something about some of these unwanted creepers:

 

"With the assistance of bhakti, sometimes karma is identified as aropa-siddha-bhakti or endeavors with are indirectly attributed with the quality of devotion and sometimes jñana is identified as sanga-siddha-bhakti or endeavors associated with or faourable to the cultivation of devotion. But they can never be accepted as svarupa-siddha-bhakti or bhakti in its constitutionally perfect stage.

 

"Svarupa-siddha-bhakti is kaitava-sunya, or free from any deceit and full of unalloyed bliss by nature, meaning that it is devoided of any desires for heavenly enjoyment and the attainment of liberation (such as 'back to Godhead).

 

"But in aropa-siddha-bhakti the desires for bhukti (sense gratification) and mukti (back to Godhead, or liberation) remain in a hidden position. Therefore, it is also called sakaitava-bhakti or deceitful bhakti.

 

"Oh my dear intimate Vaisnavas! By your constitutional nature you are attracted to svarupa-siddha-bhakti and have no taste for aropa-siddha-bhakti or sanga-misra-bhakti. Although these two types of devotion are not actually bhakti by their constitution, some people refer to these two types of activities as bhakti.

 

"In fact they are not bhakti, but bhakti-abhasa, or the semblance of real bhakti. If by some good fortune though the practice of bhakti-abhasa one develops sradddha (faith) for the true nature of bhakti, then only can such practice transform into suddha-bhakti (pure-bhakti). But this doesn't happen easily, because by the practice of bhakti-abhasa there exists every possibility of remaining bereft of suddha-bhakti. Therefore, in all scriptures the instruction is to follow svarupa-siddha-bhakti."

 

We clarify that:

 

Aropa-misra-bhakti is a kind of misconception where activities that has nothing to do with bhakti, such as gurukulas, goshalas, book distribution and so on, are superimposed to bhakti. The result of such activities, that are not navalaksana-bhakti, are attributed to bhakti since they imagine to offer its results to Sri Guru and Sri Krsna.

Sanga-misra-bhakti is a kind of misconception where one try to attract bhakti by bhakti's atributes, such as ahimsa (non violence, as being vegetarian), chastity, sincerity, cleanness, compassion, tolerance, etc. These qualities are found in one who has attained bhakti, and are by-products of bhakti itself. They are not the cause of bhakti, as some may imagine.

 

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Satya said:

The Puranic list of forbidden vegetables also includes radish, cabbage, collard greens, lettuce, cauliflower, bell pepper, chili, asparagus, and more than 50 other vegetables including tomatoes.

JNDas said:

Sorry, but half of those items were introduced in India by the British and Portuguese. Perhaps your basing this on rumor, or anugatya, or whatever you call it.

Just for the fun of it I actually went and did some research on these various vegetables and their origins. Here are some of my findings:

 

Radish – There are two views of its origin. Some say it comes from South Asia, others from the Mediterranean. It was used extensively during the days of the Pharaohs in Egypt, but didn’t reach England until 1548 A.D. So the radish is possible to have been in India.

 

Cabbage – Its origins are around the seacoast in various parts of England and continental Europe. Other vegetables from the same genus include Collard Greens, Cauliflower, Brussels Sprouts, and Brocolli.

 

Collard Greens – See Cabbage.

 

Lettuce – Native to the Mediterranean; it was cultivated principally by the Greeks.

 

Cauliflower – See Cabbage.

 

Bell Pepper – A new world vegetable that grew throughout the West Indies, Central America, Mexico, Peru and Chile. First made its introduction in Europe after the return of Columbus in the 1490s.

 

Chili – Same history as that of the Bell Pepper. Was first brought to Europe after Columbus’s return from the new world.

 

Asparagus – Native to Siberia and Southern Africa.

 

Tomatoes – A new world fruit thought to have been first domesticated in Mexico. Also found in Peru. The tomato was first introduced to Europe by the Spanish in the early 16th Century.

 

Satya said:

And if you argue that the lists of Padma Purana and Vahara Purana that include many of the 'mleccha' vegetables are spurious because these vegetables were introduced by mlecchas, them you are corroborating the thesis that most of these texts are only newly interpolations. So, why one should follow any list?

He is not corroborating any such thing. As JNDas said:

I am familiar with smriti texts, so I invite you to cite your references. It is a bad habit to always claim "this is not my opinion, it is all in the shastras" but to never cite the source. It certainly is your opinion, and I invite you to disprove me.

If you can provide evidence that these vegetables were listed then please do. Simply saying the Puranas say so, but with no verse is not enough. Second, it should be pointed out that language is very fluid. Meanings of words change over time. It is entirely possible that people today take certain sanskrit words for vegetables and interpret them to mean modern words. This happens all the time. Like in many modern versions of the Bible it talks of corn and pumpkins. But both of these are new world products. So was the Bible a modern writing? No. The words are the same, but someone has incorrectly interpreted the verses to say corn and pumpkin.

 

Finally,

 

Satya said:

You are only being intolerant with non-vegetarian people and are practicing himsa instead of ahimsa with this kind of futile proselytism.

I fail to see where he is being intollerant or proselytizing. Someone wants to discuss this issue and he does. Just as you are now. The issue has nothing to do or not do with whether vegetarianism=bhakti or any other such diversion of the topic at hand. Simply here are some points. If you have the evidence then present it. That is all.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The issue has nothing to do or not do with whether vegetarianism=bhakti or any other such diversion of the topic at hand.

 

Sorry if we seem to diverge the point. But as in this thread most of the participants are Gaudiya-vaisanvas, we considered the relevance of to point out that our aim is bhakti and not vegetarianism or any other -ims.

 

Regarding the lists of impure and pure foodstuffs one may find them in Padma Purana and Vahara Purana. We follow the version of these Puranas printed by Munshiram Manoharlal (Delhi) and translated by a board of scholars under the sponsor of UNESCO. Unfortunately the books are not at the place where we are typing this post and we cannot quote the pages by now. But everyone may verify the veracity of these info while reading these Puranas.

 

A mere coincidence or not, the vegetables forbidden by these lists are the same that are considered as 'mleccha' by most of the traditional lines. The Radha-ramana mandir in Vrindavana, for example, follows strictly these lists and never uses any of the vegetables mentioned therein. Many other temples do the same, such as Sri Jagannatha, Sri Rangam, and so on. These events may corroborate the thesis that the problems of translation and interpolations in smrti texts are not the only cause of the ban of these vegetables.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

[b

A mere coincidence or not, the vegetables forbidden by these lists are the same that are considered as 'mleccha' by most of the traditional lines. The Radha-ramana mandir in Vrindavana, for example, follows strictly these lists and never uses any of the vegetables mentioned therein. Many other temples do the same, such as Sri Jagannatha, Sri Rangam, and so on. These events may corroborate the thesis that the problems of translation and interpolations in smrti texts are not the only cause of the ban of these vegetables.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

It may say the opposite too.If these vegetables were not native to India why mention them to be banned.

 

Could it be they were banned simply as a reaction to colonialism?"We don't want you or your stinking tomatos...well except for certain chutnies."

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Personally I think this thread is a waste of time. Satya makes whatever claim he wants, says its over there in those purana thingies, and thats it. Everyone should believe him.

 

And if you tell him that he is incorrect, his answer is, "Oh, you doubt the mighty kathvanga purana?" No one is doubting the kathvanga purana. I am doubting your statements that are based on rumor, anugatya, and the such.

 

I asked for references, none were given.

 

I pointed out that the vegetables he lists are not even known in sanskrit texts. There is no word for tomato in sanskrit, just as there is no word for computer. Yet, with his advanced knowledge, he says its over there in the padma purana. Ok, fine with me. Believe that if you like.

 

I don't feel like arguing just for the sake of proving you wrong, so I won't.

 

All I wanted was this:

 

I am interested in a verse from smriti that says potatos are eternally pure like the ganga, and even if they touch beef are to be considered pure and without karmic influence.

But I am yet to see it, and I won't see it because it doesn't exist. Just as the verses about tomatos don't exist. But thats what you call as anugatya, whereas I call it as rumor.

 

I would suggest you just ask the sadhus or gurus you follow the same questions as asked to you here and see what replies they actually give you. I know they will not be different from what I have said. This is not high philosophy with hundreds of possible interpretations.

 

Instead of giving the references from smriti, you start speaking how vegetarianism is not the ultimate goal of bhakti. I didn't understand a thing. Maybe because I was trying to follow the topic, and I couldn't make out any connection.

 

Anyway, as you very well know, the shastras state that bhakti that is not performed according shruti, smriti, and pancharatra agamas simply creates a disturbance in society. This is not a new concept to you, for you have read enough books on this topic.

 

Those who fail to follow sadachara, or proper conduct for spiritual life, are just creating a disturbance in the name of bhakti. Vegetarianism is the first step towards spiritual life, for without mercy to weaker life forms, one can not truly love god.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-28-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

I just wanted to clarify a statement I had made regarding references to corn in the Bible. Actually, corn is the most referenced crop in the Bible, with between 15-20 references in Genesis alone, and well over 100 throughout the Bible itself. Here are just a few verses with regard to this:

 

Mathew 12:1

At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

 

Deuteronomy 23:25

When thou comest into the standing of corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn.

 

Joshua 5:11

And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the Passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

 

Exodus 22:6

If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

 

Deuteronomy 16:9

Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee; begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.

 

Judges 15:5

And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.

 

II Kings 19:26

Therefore their inhabitants were of small power, they were dismayed and confounded; they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the house tops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up.

 

Isaiah 17:5

And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn, and reapeth the ears with his arm; and it shall be as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim.

 

Isaiah 37:27

This verse is exactly the same as II Kings 19:26 as seen above.

 

Joshua 5:12

And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any ore; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

 

So these are just some examples of how the word corn in scattered throughout the Bible. So shall we conclude that the Bible is wrong? Or that the Bible is simply a modern interpolation? The answer is no and the reason deals with the evolution of language. Language is fluid and constantly changes. The King James Version of the Bible was first published in 1604. At that time the old English word corn referred to any generic form of grain (very often wheat). But over the last few hundred years, language has changed. Today most people think of corn as that New World crop that goes great with butter, or eaten popped at the movie theater. But that is not what the Bible is referring to in these passages. Now the reference to pumpkin is even more rare and only found in some versions of the Bible. This is more likely just a bad translation rather than language evolution.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

 

 

[atma 0]

 

Potatoes also came from the new world!

JNdas pointed right that many vegetables and fruits are forbiden in rainy season because all the worms that get in them. Try to eat a guava during monsoon time or cut an eggplant without killing a worm!

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

 

So these are just some examples of how the word corn in scattered throughout the Bible. So shall we conclude that the Bible is wrong? Or that the Bible is simply a modern interpolation? The answer is no and the reason deals with the evolution of language. Language is fluid and constantly changes. The King James Version of the Bible was first published in 1604. At that time the old English word corn referred to any generic form of grain (very often wheat). But over the last few hundred years, language has changed. Today most people think of corn as that New World crop that goes great with butter, or eaten popped at the movie theater. But that is not what the Bible is referring to in these passages. Now the reference to pumpkin is even more rare and only found in some versions of the Bible. This is more likely just a bad translation rather than language evolution.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

Gauracandra,

 

Along the same lines,the word meat in the Bible originally refered to food or nourishment.As in "the fruits of the trees and green herbs shall be your meat."Genesis

 

Once I was reading some translation of the Bible and it listed the diet of John the Baptist as grasshoppers and wild honey.This translation was from another english translation in which it read locusts and wild honey.

 

What they didn't know was locust refers to a tree, the locust tree or carob tree.John ate carob pods from the locust tree.They are also called locust beans.The seeds from these pods is the source for locust bean gum which is added to some food products.Even now you can by St. John's Bread from health food stores and herb shops.Carob pods, not grasshoppers.

 

Big difference at lunch time.

 

MC

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

There was a suggestion for a separate forum on vegetarianism. Personally I think it would be a good idea. Anyone else think we should have a "Vegetarianism and World Religions" or something? Would it be used? Or should we just keep the discussions on it here in Spiritual Discussions?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vegetarianism is the first step towards spiritual life, for without mercy to weaker life forms, one can not truly love god.

 

So, now it is your turn to support this statement with some sastric evidence. Give us a single sloka, or half of a sloka, or a line or two words where in Goswamis' ghrantas this is stated. Or by Mahaprabhu Himself, or by any other avatara. If you quote the Gita's sloka where is stated to offer Him a flower, fruit, leaf or water we will simply laugh on your ridiculous interpretation of the sloka.

 

We clear states that this is only your fanatic approach on spiritual life and gross proselytism on vegetarianism

 

[Maitreya 0]

It's a good idea.Big topic when we think of religious practices,animal slaughter, receipes etc.

 

Important as well.Praksit Maharaja said the Personality of Godhead won't reveal Himself to those engaged in animal slaughter.

 

And Prabhupada always brought it up when speaking to Christians.

 

Cow protection is vital for a society.

 

Also the word vegetarian must get a lot of hits from search engines, so we may get some interesting guests dropping by.

 

MC