Attn: Mr. Murali Sampath [Fwd: Beware of Beef in McDonald's french fries]

[Guest guest]

Dear SrI Mr. Murali Sampath,

 

The manner in which you have put your points and the points are troublesome. I

express my objections

 

You wrote:

> What one should do or not is one's personal choice.

> I don't think it is essential for anyone to advocate

> what one should be eating or doing irrespective whether

> he or she is a Vaishnaivite or whatever.

 

This can be your own thinking. In Bhagavath GitA, the Lord has advocated

Sastriya-niyamanam (meaning adherence to SAstra). This also includes

AhAra-niyamam (what to eat and what not to eat). According to you, no one

should advocate. Then you have to agree that you too cannot advocate even the

above point which you have written! While I do not care for your food

habits and do not advocate anything to you, I will surely advocate SAstra's

purport to those who are interested. Is this fine? No one can rule out the

independence in the free world the right to advocate. Also, following and not

following is as per personal choice. But we Vaidikas reject the vegetarianism

and non-vegetarianism of the modern world but follow the food habit of the

Vaidika dharmam prescribed for mumukshus.

(ref. AahAra niyamam of swAmi dESika, authentic smruthis and dharma

sAstras)

 

You wrote:

> There are some vegetarians ( atleast in the USA and Germany ) who

> believe that Cow's milk, butter, ghee, etc are afterall an animal

> by-product and so they do not consume these. They also do not

> wear any leather shoes or jacket since this again is an animal

> by-product. Does any vegetarian

> Vaishnava have an answer for this? If you look back at our Shastras or

> question our Elders regarding the usage of Milk, the only answer you may

> get is "Paal saapidarthil Nishedham illai" ( nothing wrong in drinking

> milk )! It's for you and me to buy that.

 

The usage of leather products is prohibited but there are certain exceptions

in the SAstra. Eg. KrishnAjeenam is allowed and there are rules to get it. If

a person has rationally understood that certain things

are not comprehensible through mere perception and inferences, then he resorts

to SAstra. There are many things, which cannot be known through mere

perception and mere inference. The SAstra has approved the usage of certain

leather and disapproved certain things. Similarly, though milk is from cow

(which is an animal), the SAstra approves it as a sAtvika item.

It is not the question of vegetarianism that is in the modern world.

It is the food habit of Vaidika dharmam, which is being advocated. Hope you

got the difference between the two.

 

You wrote:

> Again there's yeast involved in the milk to buttermilk process, bread,

> Idly and more. So where should one draw a line in terms of what to eat

> that Will truly render us a vegetarian? Atleast I think it's a matter of

> Personal choice - be it French fries at MacDonald's or Milk at Taj or > >

Dosa at Connemara or wherever.

 

The food habit of vadika dharmam is advocated. Therefore, I disagree with you

regarding the above point. The vegetarianism in the modern world is different

from the food habit of vaidika dharmam. I do not follow the vegetarianism of

the modern world but I follow the food habit advocated by vaidika dharmam

(Ref. AahAra niayamam of swAmi dESika). I will highlight a difference now. In

the vegetarianism of the modern world, onion is approved. But animal products

are not approved. In the food habit advocated by vaidika dharmam, onion is not

approved though it is vegetarianism product. But there are certain animal

products allowed. Cow's milk (which the modern veg.habit may reject) is

allowed. The vaidika dharmam for Satvika people classifies the food items as

sAtvika, tAmasa and rAjasa items and advocates sAtvika items for mumukshus.

 

You wrote:

> Folks, let's not debate nor lose our sanity over this debatable

> subject that has already been done a zillions of times by others

> elsewhere. I think

> Sri.Anbil Ramaswamy had only written about the Beef content in

> McDonald's French fries for awareness sake. Nowhere does he nor the

> others insist what One should be eating.

 

I agree that SrI U.Ve Anbil rAmaswAmi has just metioned about the beef content

in the french fries of that company; But I reject your statement "Nowhere does

he nor the others insist what one should be eating" in the sense that others

(Vaidikas) have definitely insisted on what SrI VaishNavas should eat and

should not eat. Your words can be considered fit before scholars if and only

if you comprehensively prove that no one has insisted on a particular food

habit. Before you can jump to a conclusion that no one has advocated certain

food habit, please read a work by swAmi SrIman nigamAntha mahA dESika titled

"AahAra niyamam". Again I say that whether you accept it or not, this is not

the question. This is just to refute that "others have not advocated a food

habit". For a kind

information, I have found atleast a doctor advocating a particular

food habit for a patient.

 

When a scholar makes a statement, he/she will ensure that it is

fit to be told before scholars.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1