Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 dear all, the discussion on veg. versus non-veg. has been interesting. i may like to summarise as well as raise a few ques. 1. food is largely a function of place, climate and availability of natural resources. 2. there are always two sides toa coin. asusme the entire world follows veg. food. how can the world meet the needs ? how can there be enough green in the world for thsi purpsoe? what will happen to the unmanageable proliferation in animal opulation? so many environemntal issues and health problesm arise. 3. moreovr, thsi will automatically restore ecological baalnce. man eating non-veg. is in principle equivalent to wild aninmals killing softer ones. these are required to maintain ecological baalnce. 4. also the concept of what comes out of moth is more relevant and not what goes in is a wonderfula dn valid one. at the same time it is interesting observe different policies among different schools of spiritual/religious thought. saints of sankara matam, cinmaya mission, raman ashram, and many others follow veg. only. thre was a great saint around the same time as sriramakrishna.he was in south india and was named Vallalar. he was extremely noble, kind-hearted and full of compassion. he fought for eradication of casteism. his principels were very simple and practical. they are largely similar to thakur's. but on the food aspect, he was very strict. he never allowed non-veg eating. he commanded that his followers and others should be strict. veg. . jay sriramakrishna Chellamani 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.