lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sun Apr 15 23:51:26 CDT 2012
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 08:32, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>wrote:
> You are right and this is the argument in ashuddhamiti chet... as
> mentioned elsewhere in this thread. But I don't think that was what
> Rajaram was trying to get at. I think what he meant was that it is
> possible for one to fulfill ones nitya and naimittika karmas without having
> to resort to himsaka yajnas and allowing himsaka yajnas in some cases does
> not give a carte blanche to kill animals indiscriminately. That part I
> agree with.
> But it is interesting to note that even in the places were non-veg is the
> norm, vegetarianism is considered spiritually superior.
I agree that :
one should refrain from hiMsA as much as possible,
even non-veg hindus consider veg as superior
bhagavAn manu says :
न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने ।
प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला ॥
and bhagavAn vyAsa in bhAgavatam :
लोके व्यवायामिषमद्यसेवा नित्यास्तु जन्तोर्न हि तत्र चोदना ।
व्यवस्थितिस्तेषु विवाहयज्ञसुराग्रहैरासु निवृत्तिरिष्टा ॥
So, again we are following shAstra-s.
We are not against ahiMsA proposed by rAjArAma or PETA, we are saying that :
defining hiMsA and ahiMsA according to shAstra is safer
definition of rAjArAma doesn't stand tests.
Moreover, his counting the number of yaGYa-s with and without hiMsA is
obviously not a good answer. So, he was opposed.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list