STOP McDonald's from moving next to Krishna Temple!

[jijaji 0]

shvu says;

 

"The person who chooses to eat meat knows all the pros and cons about it. So I have nothing new to tell him."

 

Oh really..?

 

My feelings are that people who eat meat DO NOT KNOW all the pros & cons about eating meat at all. The whole world is mislead by these animal killers into thinking it's OK to mass-murder millions of COWS so Americans can have their burgers and developing countries can be like Uncle Sam!

In fact MOST meat-eaters are basically DUMB as they are simply fullfilling their animalistic instincts of eat or be eaten!

 

jijaji

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[JRdd 0]

Adding to the excellent points already made by Jndas, MC, and jijaji (did I leave anyone out--sorry) in answer to shvu, who seems to like everything put in neat little boxes (as shown, for example, by your questioning the difference between having a Mcdonald's right next door or two blocks away, and other statements), there is the art of feng shui, or I believe Vedically it's called vastu, to consider. The energies in one's environment do make a difference, and as far as possible adjustments can or should be made to ensure the optimal situation.

 

And by the way, if one is vegetarian, one may often smell from the outside what is going on inside these places, same as I can smell cigarette smoke lingering in the air where most people I know can not smell it at all.

 

I can't get my printer going, tried to refill the ink cartridge for the first time. Guess I'll be sending out a handwritten letter to these people, gotta act quick, unless someone has found a cyber way yet.

 

thanks, JR

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Bhakta Shakta:

 

Thanks Random Axis (BB). I will research that one. So how is my Y2k-bug friend doing. Whatever happened. You seemed preety sure that their would be world-wide disaster. Nothing happened. Get that brain checked dude. Watchout for the CAT scan. It might have a malignant chip!

I made a fortune off of y2k consulting! I'll never have to work another day in my life. And I'm still eating basmati and dahl from the stash.

 

When you can hack chips, you don't worry about them, dude.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I did reply back by giving a precise quote asking for verification to which you did not reply. You can go back and check that thread, if interested.

Looks like you did. Some how I didn't completely missed your reply, even though I posted something later to the same thread.

 

In the Sundara Kanda, the 36th sarga, the 41st sloka describes how Hanuman tells Sita, " When you were away, Sri Rama refrained from eating deer meat."

 

This is the reference that I have, albeit not verified by me. Perhaps someone who has access to the Valmiki Ramayana can verify this.

 

mamaiva dushkritam kim chinmahadasti na samshayah

samarthAvapi tau yanmAm nAvekShete parantapau 41

 

No, this is one of those fake references that is really common on the internet (mostly mulsim websites criticizing hinduism). The above verse is not connected at all with the claimed translation.

 

Like this there are 10 or 20 such referenced verses that just don't exist in any way similar to the claims.

[Bhakta Shakta 0]

Shvu:

"Maitreya, Can you tell me what in your opinion should be the minimum distance between a temple and the nearest McDonalds and why?

 

Thanx"

 

Dear Shvu,

 

I think you are missing the point. A business is suppose to serve the needs & wants of the surrounding people. Their seems to be a dichtomy here, not accidental, but intentional. Their are vegetarian devotees in the area and there are non-vegetarian karmi's/devotees that will come in to purchase meat-food. Who is creating this intentional clash? Why is a McDonalds being built so close to ISKCON-Dallas? This will offend the devotees who are an important part of the Dallas city. Seems that their are people with ulterior motives here.

 

Doesn't ISKCON help the area with food and clothes? It adds tremendous sociological, economic, and spiritual value to Dallas. Much more than a single McDonalds could add. ISKCON should be viewed as an independent corporation in the eyes of the people, just like McDonalds. When you weigh both, ISKCON-Dallas wins, easily. Regardless of the fact which is better materially, the government is for the people by the people. The people of Dallas do not want a McDonalds near Iskcon-Dallas. Build it somewhere else.

 

Good thing about this is that it will create a lot of press on this topic and more people will enter the temple and have darshan.

 

-Bhakta Shakta.

 

[This message has been edited by Bhakta Shakta (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Ananga 0]

First of all, why does the temple need to be near the people? Isn't that what shonkirton was designed for, to reach the people?

 

Let's face it, we live in an omnivorous world, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. So, we can either deal with that or freak out or run for the hills.

 

Personally, I think the Micky D's are unsightly (although I would never tell my cousin that to his face). If you stand out on our street and look directly south you can see the golden arches (yuck!). Besides, even many meat eaters turn up their nose in disgust at the badly prepared and unhealthy fare to be found in those places. Our best bet is that they are forced to close down by people just discontinuing their patronage out of simply getting tired of their mediocre product. Heck, I bet more than half the parents that go there are just there for the free toys that they hand out with meals.

 

Oh, well, Kali Yuga...

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Bhakta Shakta 0]

yum.

 

[This message has been edited by Bhakta Shakta (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Bhakta Shakta 0]

From another perspective...

If I was the owner of a McDonald's and ISKCON decided to build themself a temple next to me then I am just going to tell them "build somewhere else. you are decreasing my business. i have no problem with you Hare Krsna's. i have a family to feed just like you. just build somewhere else"

 

They're are certain social protocols/customs that people should observe in their daily dealings and in business (the case here) for that matter. Respect for others is one. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. This is for the benefit of society/varnaashrama-dharma. Personally, I have no problem with McD's building next to a Hare Krsna temple. You might even see me in the McDonald's eating a baked apple-pie (has eggs i believe).

 

Note:

Moving this McD's 'away' from the temple is not going to increase the Krishna devotion. Yum.

 

[This message has been edited by Bhakta Shakta (edited 07-09-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Bhakta Shakta (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

 

Until then,the general rule holds that they should be kept away at the greatest distance possible.

 

 

I answered that also.Okay how about out of sight and smell range.

 

There are many reasons to oppose these type of businesses.From litter to noise to traffic flow.

 

In cities we find industrial areas.We also find areas that are meant for the performing arts and residential.

 

We find city planning commissions opposing Temples and Mosques being built that don't conform to the architechure[sp]of present structures.

 

I don't know the neighborhood around Dallas temple.But anytime I can oppose McDonalds and the like I take it.

 

shvu, do you eat meat?

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

I answered that also.Okay how about out of sight and smell range.

I have lived in the US for a while now and far as I know, the fast food joints do not smell outside the building. Out of sight...not sure what that means.

 

There are many reasons to oppose these type of businesses.From litter to noise to traffic flow.

The same can be said about starbucks, dairy queen or baskin robbins too.

 

shvu, do you eat meat?

No, but I eat cakes (which contain eggs). I also have the chocolate pie at burger king. if someone were to aske me, I would recommend a Vegetarian diet. But if someone wants to eat meat, I would not object either. The person who chooses to eat meat knows all the pros and cons about it. So I have nothing new to tell him.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Sruti authority cannot be denied by those who supposedly are defending sanatana-dharma's precepts, as the case of Harekrsnas.

 

Shvuji has clear pointed out the sruti opinion regarding to eat bovine meat. He has quoted Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 as a sound proof that sruti allows even brahmanis to eat this kind of flesh.

 

Besides that quote by Shvuji, we should add the following instructions given by sruti regarding the same issue:

 

1. Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single-colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by fervor - vouchsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647].

In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. Another hymn (RV: X.16.7) mentions the ritual enveloping of the corpse with cow flesh before applying the fire on it.

 

2. In the Brahmanas at 1.15 in the Aiteriya Brahmana, the kindling of Agni on the arrival of King Some is compared to the slaughter of a bull or a barren cow on the arrival of a human king or other dignitary.

 

3. Similarly, at II.1.11.1 in the Taiteriya Brahmana and XXXI.14.5 in the Panchavinsha Brahmana, the rishi Agastya is credited with the slaughter of a hundred bulls.

 

4. In verse III.1.2.21 in the Satapatha Brahmana, sage Yajnavalkaya asserts that even though the cow is the supporter of everyone, he would eat beef "if it is luscious." At IV.5-2.1 in the same Brahmana, it is said that a barren cow can be slaughtered in the some sacrifice. Not only for religious purposes, but also for other purposes one could kill a cow and eat beef. Thus at II.4.2 of the same Brahmana, it is suggested that a fat bull or fat goat should be sacrificed in honor of an important guest.

 

5. Brihadaranyaka Upanishada (VI.4.18) advises a couple to take an evening meal of beef or veal pulao, if they desire to beget a son who is learned in the Vedas [Robert Trumbull, As I see India, London, 1957, p. 241].

 

Smrti texts should always follows sruti assertive and never deny them. Manu smrti is to be considered the main dharma-sastra in this regard, and Manu-smrti clear states that no one is to be considered an inhabitant of hell simply because he eats meat, or he drinks wine. There are special conditions to be accepted as dharmics while eating meat and drinking wine.

 

Another smrti text, the Bhagavata Purana also mention that some kind of meat should always be considered as dharmic, even in Kali-yuga (9.6.7) . Another important smrti text, the Vaisnava dharmasastra from Visnu-smrti (51.6) also says: "If a man has (unawares) eaten meat of a five-toed animal, with the exception of the hare, the porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros, and the tortoise, he must fast for seven days."

 

And also itihasas says: 'Only five among the five-clawed creatures can be eaten by Brahmans and Ksatriyas, Raghava: the hedgehog, the porcupine, the lizard, the rabbit, and fifth, the turtle.' " -- Ramayana 4:17:34.

 

We cannot find any clear injunction in these smrtis that bovine meat is to be considered impure, not proper to be taken and so on.

 

Therefore, if Gaudiya-vaisnavas really want to have a serious discussion in this regard, they should present a sruti text clearly stating that bovine meat should not be eaten. Smrti texts that may deny the sruti assertive mentioned before should not be mentioned, as they are false inferences on sruti.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

We cannot find any clear injunction in these smrtis that bovine meat is to be considered impure, not proper to be taken and so on.

If you had actually read any of the texts you had quoted, I would spend some time replying your statements. But that fact that you just did a search on the internet for "meat in hinduism", and copied a few quotes from a web site make me not value your input, at least not to the point of deserving a response.

 

All the quotes you provided are available on a number of anti-hindu websites, along with the quotes from Ramayana (that never actually existed). In fact, the translations posted are word for word duplicates.

 

This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. 'Serious' means taking books and studyinging, not spending 30 seconds doing a search on google to find a half-baked website that is about as scholary as the lint in my keyboard.

 

If anyone is actually interested in the topic of gomedha-yajna I can suggest some books that deal solely with this topic.

 

[Guest guest]

This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure.(Jndas)

 

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. It is saying; "one (even a brahmanin) should eat bovine meat to have a good son." 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.

 

We had are also mentioned the book publishers of the other sruti texts posted and anyone can consult its authenticity, and Rg Veda is not actually a secret and rare text to be read.

[Jagat 1]

Clearly, Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way that Satyaraj thinks they do or should do.

 

Certainly, there is clear evidence that meat of all kinds was eaten in the Vedic period, even by Brahmins. Does this mean that there was no historical change that took place afterwards, with the result that this aspect of Vedic civilization was rejected, at least where Brahmins and others interested in Sattvik qualities are concerned?

 

Religion, like everything else, evolves. It is unfortunate that this scripture-quoting mentality is used to restrict our ability to think for ourselves. The insights of previous acharyas have to be studied in the light of our own realization, which is a gift from God.

 

Jagat

 

 

[shvu 1]

Clearly, Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way that Satyaraj thinks they do or should do.

When you say Vaishnavas, you mean Gaudiyas. To say Vaishnavas do not accept Sruti would be misleading.

 

Certainly, there is clear evidence that meat of all kinds was eaten in the Vedic period, even by Brahmins. Does this mean that there was no historical change that took place afterwards, with the result that this aspect of Vedic civilization was rejected, at least where Brahmins and others interested in Sattvik qualities are concerned?

There certainly was. The Buddhists and Jains were the people who opposed animal sacrifice and thereby promoted ahimsa in a big way. Consequently the Vedic style Hinduism [yajnas, esoteric thinking, etc] died out and in it's place arose the Puranic style hinduism that we know today which was made available to all categories of people [non-brahmanas] with an attempt to counteract spreading non-vedic religions. The Puranic style Hinduism came up with avatars, Yugas, etc.

 

Religion, like everything else, evolves.

It certainly does. Indra the big God of the Rig-veda is not worshipped today. Vishnu a small time God in the Rig-veda became a popular God later on [Yajur veda onwards]. Go back in time some more and the Harappan people were worshipping the Mother Goddess and a horned fertility God and all kinds of animals were worshipped. Read The wonder that was India by Basham.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-10-2001).]

[Bhakta Shakta 0]

http://www.peta.org/liv/cc/ingred.html

Rennet. Rennin.

Enzyme from calves' stomachs. Used in cheese-making, rennet custard (junket), and in many coagulated dairy products. Alternatives: microbial coagulating agents, bacteria culture, lemon juice, or vegetable rennet."

When the rennet is from a vegetable source it is stated as 'vegetable rennet'. Otherwise it is implied that the enzyme is hacked from an animal. Hopefully, the cheese you get has a vegetable enzyme. Of course, if you live underneath the ground (vegetables), the enzyme that is used probably comes from a vegetable source.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Seeing how little effort was put into gathering quotes and context regarding the eating of meat in the scriptures, I choose to reply with an equally insincere effort. Here are some quotes from Hinduism Today. Those that know my personal judgment of Hinduism Today can understand how much respect I must have for the google search research done by some forum members.

 

I wonder what Vallabhacharya said on this topic? Maybe he was eating cows like we are told the rest of the Rishis were doing?

 

Anyway, on with Hinduism Today!

 

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head. Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90

 

The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94

 

Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90

 

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90

 

You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

 

May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18.

 

No pain should be caused to any created being or thing. Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116

 

 

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid killing any living creature. Refrain from taking precious life from any living being, even to save your own life. Tirukurral 324; 327, TW

 

Perceptive souls who have abandoned passion will not feed on flesh abandoned by life. TK 258, TW

 

Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature. TK 259, TW

 

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat. TK 260, TW

 

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the

flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species

he may take his birth. MAHABHARAT 115.47

 

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,

faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and

physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of

injury.

MAHABHARAT 18.115.8

 

The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by his

wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the

killer does Hinsa by actually tying and killing the animal.

Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh

or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and

he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of

these are to be considered meat-eaters.

MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in

all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees

the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is

the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting

others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path.

BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28

 

Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas.

Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest

self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is

the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is

the highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching.

MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41

 

In his commentary on the Yoga Sutras, sage Vyasa defines ahimsa as "the absence of injuriousness (anabhidroha) toward all living beings (sarvabhuta) in all respects (sarvatha) and for all times (sarvada)."

 

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on

how it may avoid killing any creature.

TIRUKURAL 324

 

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful

adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.

TIRUKURAL 260

 

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting life,

for killing leads to every other sin.

TIRUKURAL 312, 321

 

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one

who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh.

TIRUKURAL 253

 

"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless way of life. In the Mahabharata, for instance, the great warrior Bhishma explains to Yudhishtira, eldest of the Pandava princes, that the meat of animals is like the flesh of one's own son, and that the foolish person who eats meat must be considered the vilest of human beings [Anu. 114.11]. The eating of 'dirty' food, it warns, is not as terrible as the eating of flesh [shanti. 141.88] (it must be remembered that the brahmanas of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a divine principle).

 

"Similarly, the Manusmriti declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds of meat,' for such eating involves killing and leads to karmic bondage (bandha) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharajah Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth [shrimad Bhagavatam 10.1.4].' "

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jagatji: Clearly, Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way that Satyaraj thinks they do or should do.

 

Satyaraj: Actually I personally do not known all Vaisnavas' sects and sub-sects, and what to say all Vaisnavas who are not linked to any sect or sub-sect. But the premise is that sruti should be taken as absolute statements, made by Hari Himself and not by any other jiva. They are to be considered as eternal instructions, and the main authority to be followed. Probably there may be some Vaisnavas who are strict followers of sruti precepts, and some others may not.

 

Jagatji: Certainly, there is clear evidence that meat of all kinds was eaten in the Vedic period, even by Brahmins.

 

Satyaraj: As the Vedanta instructs, the sruti are eternal because the idea (form) is there, and this idea is eternal. Sruti allows this idea of brahmanins eating bovine meat and srmtis such as Manu-smrti don't consider it as absolutely illegal, rather it is subjected to some restrictions not mentioned in sruti. This is smrti's role.

 

Jagatji: Does this mean that there was no historical change that took place afterwards, with the result that this aspect of Vedic civilization was rejected, at least where Brahmins and others interested in Sattvik qualities are concerned? Religion, like everything else, evolves.

 

Satyaraj: This is Shvuji thesis: That the habit to eat bovine meat has disappeared in India due to Buddha's preachings and philosophy of ahimsa, as well as most of others aspects of Vedic civilization at that time. Some say that Vedic culture has caused a feeling of great depression in everyone, and therefore people took shelter in voidism as a kind of escape from Vedic monotony. No great proselytism was necessary at that time.

 

Jagatji: It is unfortunate that this scripture-quoting mentality is used to restrict our ability to think for ourselves. The insights of previous acharyas have to be studied in the light of our own realization, which is a gift from God.

 

Satyaraj: As sruti gives only ideas, to quote sruti is always increasing our ability to think for ourselves, as we can make countless smrtis (inferences) on these ideas and check out their value in countless ways by ourselves. Teachings of previous acaryas as well as our own realizations are means to discriminate what smrtis are bona fide and what are not. The lives of saints proof that they in fact had done their existences a sruti, as no false smrtis can be founded in their conducts and precepts. Only a great and perfect saint may compile a Siksastakam, that is the full realization of the essence of all srutis, and therefore it is itself a sruti .

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

To give a slightly more serious answer, the cow is known as 'aghnya', or that which can not be killed. In the Veda's samhitas (which are available today), this term is used to indicate cows over 70 times.

 

Sometimes the word 'cow' is used to refer to products of the cow, such as milk, butter, ghee, yoghurt,etc. Thus there are some verses that apparently refer to the meat of a cow, which in reality do not refer to that at all.

 

There is an authorized system of gomedha yajna in the vedas, but this also has little to do with killing a cow. Sripada Madhvacharya establishes this clearly in his commentaries to Srimad Bhagavatam as follows:

 

yajneshv alabhanam proktam

devatoddeshatah pashoh

himsa nama tad-anyatra

tasmat tam nacared vudhah

 

yato yajne mrita urdhvam

yanti deve ca paitrike

ato labhad alabhanam

svargasya na tu maranam

 

The vedas describe certain sacrifices to God that involve the offering of animals, but such offerings are not himsa (violence). If animals are killed for any other purpose, without rigidly following the Vedic injunctions, such killing is violence and should not be accepted by any intelligent person. In the sacrifice, the animal is immediately promoted to the heavenly planets, and this is visibly seen by the participants, thereby demostrating the efficacy of vedic mantras. It is not the killing of an animal.

 

This requires a proper study, and won't be learnt from the google search.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-10-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Jagat said:

Clearly, Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way that Satyaraj thinks they do or should do.

And SHVU replied:

When you say Vaishnavas, you mean Gaudiyas. To say Vaishnavas do not accept Sruti would be misleading.

You misread Jagats statement. He never said Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti, he said "Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way as Satyaraj thinks they do or should do." Or in other words, Vaishnavas accept Shuti in a way different from how Satyaraj thinks they do.

 

Go back in time some more and the Harappan people were worshipping the Mother Goddess and a horned fertility God and all kinds of animals were worshipped.

And go back a little further in time, the indians were carrying clubs, beating dinasaurs over the head, and living in caves. That was before they discovered fire of course.

 

[Guest guest]

Jndas: I wonder what Vallabhacharya said on this topic? Maybe he was eating cows like we are told the rest of the Rishis were doing?

 

Satyaraj: For certain Sri Vallabhacarya used to follow the maryada of his time, and as a brahmanin he would observe vegetarianism as prescribed by his caste, as well as Sri Caitanya.

 

The instructions of Sri Vallabha's sect are very liberal and the main dictum is: "Love for God should be like Love - spontaneous, free and a willing partner in all that you do. Not a forced thing - that is not love and does not inspire devotion."

 

There are no rigid rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti. For certain if someone is trying to serve Hari with non-vegetarian meals due some special characteristic of his love, Lord will understand and would love to interact with him in a form that is most "natural" for this devotee. There are no Mlecchas and Hindus in the eyes of God. They are all His children. How can He love them any less due their different tendencies ? Its our views that separate us not His. In His view, we are all His beloved children.

 

Our love for Hari is ours. It is not Hindu, nor non-Hindu. Love is love. Prahaladaji, Vrunda, Bali, Vibhishan, Sugriva - these were all non-Aryans. They were either raksasa, vanara or a mix of more than one race. Hari

never deserted them. Why should He desert someone because he is a non-veg ?

 

According to Sri Vallabha's sect instructors, Rama, as a prince, was used to hunting and regularly ate meat. Why else would you hunt deer ? Lions and tigers can be hunted as they are a menace to the villagers and forest dwellers, but deer ! Surely, the warrior caste than, as now, hunted and ate meat on a regular basis.

 

These are some of the precepts I'm learning from Sri Vallabha's sect. Though I am a vegetarian, its by choice rather than religious injunctions.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Our love for Hari is ours. It is not Hindu, nor non-Hindu. Love is love. Prahaladaji, Vrunda, Bali, Vibhishan, Sugriva - these were all non-Aryans. They were either raksasa, vanara or a mix of more than one race. Hari never deserted them. Why should He desert someone because he is a non-veg?

Yet all of these people followed the principles of dharma. Maybe there is a leson to be learned.

[Maitreya 0]

Beyond just the bad smells that these shops of horrors produce, there is the sublter considerations.The ones we all perceive to varying degrees but don't often have specific words for.We often just say "bad vibes."But what does that mean?

 

It means thoughts are things.They have shape,color and size as well as different levels of intensity.They project out off the aura of the mind of the thinker and have a certain duration of existence.Most importantly they produce effects in those that they contact.

 

Ever have the feeling that someone was watching you and you turn and see someone staring intently at you.I think we all have experienced that.

 

What is happening is that person is 'thinking on you'.Their thoughts are actually being sent forth from the mind of the person, taking shape, size and color according to their nature and striking your aura.From there those thoughts make their presence known to us.

 

Well imagine the vibe of a McDonalds or some similar place.Or a bar or brothel.Such places have a subtle atmosphere of a very dark and nasty nature.Not just figuratively but the darker sides of our thinking actually produce darker colored thought forms correspondently.These have negative effects on those that come in contact with them.

 

Just as places of high vibration, where worship of God is practiced, attract those of that mindset both from the gross material and higher astral levels,so do these places where low class activity is practiced attract beings from the gross material side as well as low stationed astral dwellers, who hover about them.The places were Kali was allowed to dwell.There is a corresponding astral dimension and its inhabitants that needs to be considered.

 

And consider the foodstuff there just absorbing all that thought crap.Yucko!Those fries have more than just beef flavor added to them.

 

This is one good reason to avoid eatting at McDonalds.That low astral energy permeates the place and contaminates your aura just by being there.Even thinking too much about being in such a place is contaminating.

 

For truly God conscious souls there is no danger of course,but there also is no attraction.

 

MC

 

A couple small books on the subject are the Astral World and the human aura by Swami Pancadasi.I've seen the Human Aura printed on-line.Not sure about the Astral World.

 

There are lots of others, Annie Basant I know wrote one called thought forms, but the Swami has a style that is unique.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 07-11-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

ye tv anevaM-vido 'santaH

stabdhAh sad-abhimAninaH

pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH

pretya khAdanti te ca tAn

 

"Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world."

 

Bhagavata Purana 11.5.15

[Guest guest]

Jndas: Yet all of these people followed the principles of dharma. Maybe there is a lesson to be

learned.

 

Satyaraj; Yes, there is an important lesson to be learned. These people didn't attain Hari because they followed dharma. Instead of it, they had attained Him because they had rejected their dharma and simply had surrender themselves to Hari with love and affection for Him. They could understand that dharma alone could not save them from sins, death, re-born, sorrows, and so on. They had surrendered themselves to Hari in different ways and moods and Hari has protected them, as He is partial towards His devotees (Vedanta 2.1.37 & Gita 18.66). Simple saying: "My dear Hari. I am Yours!"

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 07-11-2001).]