Janus Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 " If somebody says that "I am a great devotee of Kali, goddess Kali," that is not bhakti; that is business. Because any demigod you worship, there is some purpose behind that. Generally, people take to become a devotee of goddess Kali for eating meat. That is their purpose. In the Vedic culture, those who are meat-eaters, they have been advised that "Don't eat meat purchased from the slaughterhouse or from the market." Actually, this system was never current anywhere, all over the world, that! to maintain slaughterhouse. This is latest invention. We talk with sometimes with Christian gentlemen, and when we inquire that "Lord Christ says 'Thou shalt not kill'; why you are killing?" they give evidence that "Christ also ate meat sometimes." Sometimes Christ ate meat, that's all right, but did Christ say that "You maintain big, big slaughterhouse and go on eating meat?" There is no common sense even. Christ might have eaten. Sometimes he... If there was no, nothing available for eating, what could you do? That is another question. In great necessity, when there is no other food except taking meat... That time is coming. In this age, Kali-yuga, gradually food grains will be reduced. It is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Twelfth Canto. No rice, no wheat, no milk, no sugar will be available. One has to eat meat. This will be the condition. And maybe to eat the human flesh also. This sinful life is degrading so much so that they will become more and more sinful. Tan aham dvisatah kruran ksipamy ajasram andhe-yonisu. Those who are demons, those who are sinful, nature's law is to place him in such condition that he will become more and more a demon so that he will never be able to understand what is God. This is nature's law. If you want to forget God, then God will put you in such a condition that you can never understand what is God. That is demonic life. That time is also coming. At the present moment, still a few men are interested, what is God. Arto artharti jijnasu jnani. But time is coming ahead when there will be no sense to understand God. That is the last stage of Kali-yuga, and at that time Kalki avatara, Kalki avatara will come. At that time there is no preaching of God consciousness, simply killing, simply killing. " From a talk by ACBSP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 I said: This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. And Satyaraj replied This sruti text mentioned by Shvuji is from Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18, and the whole text also can be easily found in Hindu net sites, not in "anti-Hindu" web-sites. This text is not talking about a gomedha-yajña, but it is instructing on mundane dharma. Please read the entire chapter. This text is speaking about different yajnas that may be performed for different results. Or maybe you thought that just by eating rice one will give birth to the perfect child? It is saying; "one (even a brahmanin) should eat bovine meat to have a good son." No, it doesn't say this. Go back to the google search and try again. Better yet, just read the entire chapter and not this single verse. You have a habit of coming to irrational conclusions based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and you often change directions very quickly. You should develop equanimity or at least gravity in analysis. Think about a dozen times from all angles of vision on a topic before blurting out your conclusion. This is the method of many acharyas, to first consider the view of the purvapakshi, to analyze this view, to come up with various doubts associated with one's own view, and then to establish the conclusion. Don't be too emotional and irrationally responsive. Don't respond just for the sake of responding. After being firmly situated in one's own understanding, after having analysed the views of the opposite side, after having raised doubts against your own stance, then answer them by presenting a conclusion devoid of personal emotions. There is no inference if the meat is coming from a gomedha-yajña or from any other origin in the text. This inference is yours. It is not infered it is directly stated in the text. Please read the chapter as I have requested. I am sorry, but I dont have time to type it out for you at the moment. Also note the section on how to kill one's wife's lover (if she had one). The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done. There are detailed explainations on how to steal another man's wife, how to kill and overthrow the king, how to utilize black magic against people, etc. This is why the Vedas are known as kalpa-taru, they are like a desire tree of knowledge. Whatever you want, they have that information in them. If you want to perform evil activities, or destructive activities, they will provide you guidance on that as well. But to think that the message of the vedas has anything to do with such activities is foolish. That is why there is Vedanta, 'the end of knowledge', which is the Upanishads. For spiritual progress one must take shelter of the message of the Upanishads. Actually, even the apparently materialistic texts (karma-khanda portions) of the Vedas have very deep spiritual instructions encoded within them. But for that one needs to know the code of the Vedas. Others will just see the external meanings, an apparent sacrifice or activity, which has more or less no spiritual value. To such people the secret of the Vedas remains locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" you posted to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat: [Rama:] 'I must to lonely wilds repair, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharat's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. Why is it irrational? Because there is no such thing as a verse Ramayana 2:20. The Ramayana is divided into cantos, chapters, and verses; there needs to be three indicators to identify a verse. But you don't spend the 30 seconds to even look at a Ramayana, you just blindly take it as absolute authority. This verse is quoted on dozens of anti-hindu sites to prove that Rama ate meat. But it only convinces foolish people who have never read the scriptures. Like this there are around 10 or 20 other verses claimed to be from the Ramayana that in reality do not exist. Since most people won't take the time to verify, they feel they can just make up a verse and pass it off as authentic. To me, anyone who accepts such evidence without verifying it is coming to an irrational conclusion, more so if they then try to propagate such ignorance as truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Jndas: The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done... Satyaraj: Sruti are the collection of ideas (and forms) that are eternal. These ideas itself aren't good or bad, but absolute in the sense that they are coming from Hari's supreme conscience. Here in jada-jagat jivas are making their own smrtis (inferences) on these ideas prompted by Hari and their own karma-vasana, or the desire to relish different results. All dharmas are the result of these jiva's smrtis and are the cause of the development of the karma-vasana. This karma-vasana is the cause of material bondage, that is to be considered as a enormous tree whose roots are growing upwards and whose branches are extending down, whose leaves are the ideas from sruti that establish different mundane activities, whose roots are countless desires of sense gratification, and so on. (Gita 15.1). One should cut down this monstrous tree with the axe of the detachment caused by knowledge given by sruti itself and he should seek after shelter of Hari by and imperative and intense search on Him. There is no other way. All dharmas should be abandoned as soon one understand this premise. That's to say, jiva's should stop to imagine and to follow their countless smrtis, and simply be absorbed in the essence of sruti, that is love and affection towards Hari with a sincere heart (ananya-bhakti). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Jay Rama Hari! Is there something different than Hari? A second Hari? No. Sruti vehemently deny this possibility. Imagine that Rama is hunting a deer. He kills a deer everyday and give it as a gift to His beloved father Dasaratha Maharaja. What Rama is killing? A second Hari? Something that is different than Himself? That's impossible. Rama is playing lila and His lila is inconceivable. Reasoning cannot follow it. Hari's 'modus operandi' is beyond our intellect. Now Dasaratha Maharaja is eating deer meat. It is something different than Hari? A second Hari? A deer killed by Rama as His sport is to be considered His prasada. Should Dasaratha avoid it? Dasaratha Maharaja doesn't eat without Rama's company. Rama for certain would take the same kind of meal as His father. Is Rama eating a second Hari? Something different than Himself? Rama eats because He wants to play lila. One should not imagine that Hari is hungry, or that He has some gastronomical preferences, as sruti states that He is atmarama and atmakama. He is self satisfied and always content. So why He is eating? He is eating to fulfill His own lila. To reciprocate love and affection with His beloved father and devotee Dasaratha Maharaja. So, He kills a dear (that is not a second Hari), gives it as a gift to His father (that is not a second Hari) and He eats with him to reciprocate love and affection. Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maitreya Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 In this discussion of the Lord's eatting habits, let's not forget our place on the menu. The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pändavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain. PURPORT Although Arjuna knew that Krsna was his friend and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he was puzzled by the various forms exhibited by Krsna. Therefore he asked further about the actual mission of this devastating force. It is written in the Vedas that the Supreme Truth destroys everything, even the brahmanas. As stated in the Katha Upanishad (1.2.25), yasya brahma ca kñatraà ca ubhe bhavata odanaù måtyur yasyopasecanaà ka itthä veda yatra saù Eventually all the brähmanas, ksatriyas and everyone else are devoured like a meal by the Supreme. This form of the Supreme Lord is the all-devouring giant, and here Krsna presents Himself in that form of all-devouring time. Except for a few Pändavas, everyone who was present on that battlefield would be devoured by Him. Arjuna was not in favor of the fight, and he thought it was better not to fight; then there would be no frustration. In reply, the Lord is saying that even if he did not fight, every one of them would be destroyed, for that was His plan. If Arjuna stopped fighting, they would die in another way. Death could not be checked, even if he did not fight. In fact, they were already dead. Time is destruction, and all manifestations are to be vanquished by the desire of the Supreme Lord. That is the law of nature. Bg 11.32 [This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 07-12-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ananga Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 JNDas: For what its worth: The Gita Press English edition of Ramayana describes at length of a sage that Ramachandra visits, who prepares a feast of all kinds of animal flesh. I believe they have never been an anti-Hindu publisher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'? I'll fully admit I can not understand Hari's activities, [and I say this next part somewhat jokingly] especially since I couldn't understand what the point of your post was Gauracandra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Originally posted by Ananga: The Gita Press English edition of Ramayana describes at length of a sage that Ramachandra visits, who prepares a feast of all kinds of animal flesh. I believe they have never been an anti-Hindu publisher. There are several editions of Ramayana that mention such things, but up till now I have not seen a version of Valmiki Ramayana that does, nor have I seen any traditional teacher state this (though they do say other versions of Ramayana mention this). Valmiki Ramayana is the authorized depiction of Sri Rama's pastimes. Other versions are the works of various sadhus, some authentic, some not. If the story does not find a basis in Valmiki Ramayana, then its authenticity may be questioned. As to whether or not Rama ate meat, it is irrelevant, after all, he eats the universes. But the point is whether or not this statement is based on authority or speculation. Some of the people here like to speculate a lot about there being different varieties of Hari (the nondual Hari, the Puranic Hari, the shruti Hari, the deer Hari, the dirt Hari, etc.). When they are repeatedly shown to have provided false evidence (and to have not even read the scriptures they are quoting), rather than admit they are wrong or that they have made a mistake, they continue with their game by ignoring it and posting some mental speculation about spontaneous bhakti. Such shameless people really need to find a sadhu, for only a sadhu can guide us properly in the traditional study of shastra. Rather than relying on Munishwara such and such and his UNESCO printing press, better to find a guru. It won't be as easy as buying a book, but it is necessary for attaining Hari. Thats the instruction of Vallabha, and thats the instruction of every Vaishnava acharya. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-12-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita, "The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics." But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat. Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 To make things even more complicated, there are several versions of "Valmiki" Ramayana today, which are very different from each other. For example I quoted in a previous post the same verse you referred here, and it isn't spoken by Hanuman, and it has absolutely nothing to do with food at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted July 12, 2001 Report Share Posted July 12, 2001 Ananga ji, I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 13, 2001 Report Share Posted July 13, 2001 Since the discussion has shifted far from the title of the thread, I have moved some of the other posts to a new topic. Please continue discussing there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitanyachandra Posted November 17, 2001 Report Share Posted November 17, 2001 It would make it easier if the ISKCON temple was on the outskirts of the Carollton area. That way if there was abuse noone would be aware of it!!!---- SomeMoral of the story is when sankirtan travels south a temple should go with it by building south-north. [This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 04-06-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitanyachandra Posted November 17, 2001 Report Share Posted November 17, 2001 What is the standard of deity worship in Dallas temples. (*(very medium -< low. Barsana-dham of AUSTIN is on slaughter lane in southwest austin. I WOULD BE INTERSTED IN THE DIVINE LINEAGE OF the leader of it,,, ISDL. [This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 11-17-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul108 Posted November 18, 2001 Report Share Posted November 18, 2001 I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, and I don't want to get into an argument about eating meat either. I became a vegetarian because of it's much friendlier environmental impact, years before ever hearing of the Vedas. Currently I work enforcing Pennsylvania's air quality regulations. Here we have a regulation concerning malodors, which, although heavily slanted in favor of polluters, can still be effective in some cases. We also have a law regulating how much smoke can come out of a stack. If a hamburger joint gets built next to a temple, the devotees might be able to find some relief in the applicable air quality regulations, although I'm not sure Texas has any... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 Mcdonalds is so grose. I don't see how people eat that stuff knowing that it is unhealthy. Pretty much all thy are surving is greasy meat in wax paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Can you cite the related slokas, scriptures etc? R Ray rray_calcutta@hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 Can you cite the related slokas, scriptures etc? No he cannot, because he made them up. He is an atheist who finds no joy in his atheism, and so he comes here to pick on the devotees by making all sorts of wild claims, taking things out of context, trying to start arguments, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.