Friday, March 13, 2009



From whatever I have read in these messages, it is clear that Vivekanand was a person of the same category as Karunanidhi and no different or better. A person who wants to eat meat, smoke or drink, will find his justification in any religion or religious person. Perhaps the people who have taken Vivekanand as role model are the same with Mlechcha tendencies and therefore they have chosen another Mlechcha as their role model in order to continue enjoying the pleasures of this world and then justifying it under the name of a religion. The basics of Hindu religion remain firm and truthful, non-violence, no killing, sanyam, niyam, prayer and dhyan. If anyone acts against these basic tenets be it Vivekanand or any other group or people living in the West, they have every right to take him as their role model for their convenience and gloating that they are following the rishis like this Vivekananda and therefore only following the tenets of the Hindu religion. However, they can foool the whole world, but never themselves and one day the truth will open their eyes either in their life time or hereafter.

Hindu religion is not a child's play. But then it is more like sun and spitting on it will bring the spit on oneself only. Also the wrongs we do or the good we do, do not give results right away, it takes time for it to ripen when the consequences will be unbearable for each one of us. And these truths apply universally be he Hindu or not, as the Hindu dharm is Santan Dharm and not man made like some of the other religions.

People who are or who did blasphemy against the Hindu religion, or against the rishis - who for the most part were vegetarians or even living on air, or Bhagwan Ram and Sita, who are the ideal model of Hinduism, to be wrongly attributed with shameful things, such people's conscience itself will punish them if not now in the latter life, I am quite sure of it. Of course none of us is afraid of our afterlife! so let us have a child's play now and enjoy and loose talk!



- Hide quoted text -
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Agniveer wrote:

In summary:

Beef is acceptable in Hindutva
Ram/Krishna can be drunkards in Hindutva

The point then is that why Muhammad, Jesus, Karunanidhi et al are not icons of Hindutva then? Afterall even Vivekanand praises Muhammad and Jesus as god-incarnate

Coming to other points:
1. It is out of ignorance that Bhanotji says that Rishis used to eat meat in Himalayas. I challenge anyone to cite one single example of it. By the way, in Garhwal, Kumaon of Himalyas, one finds more vegetarians than in planes.
2. In UK, Europe, etc, due to company of Mlecchas, every other nuisance may be acceptable as Hindutva and culture, but in Bharat, beef and respect of Ram/Krishna forms foundation of Hindutva.
3. I have no objection to beef-loving, alcoholic UK Hindus considering Vivekanand as role model. They may even have Jesus and Muhhamad as role models in time to come.

But for RSS, VHP and the like, who very clearly agitate for ban on cow slaughter and file cases against Karunanidhi for calling Ram as drunkard, whose pracharaks vow to a life without meat, who consider that sanyasi should be free from vices like smoking, alcohol, meat etc, Vivekanand does not seem to fit into category of role-model or icon.

Recently RSS and VHP supported cases against NCERT, Delhi University and forced them to remove those passages from syllabus which called Vedic rishis as meat-eaters, beef-eaters and called Ram/ Sita etc as less than ideals. Similar case was filed against karunanidhi. For the non-UK Hindus, Ram is a role model, symbolism of perfection. Cow is mother incarnate. Any tom, dick, harry or smoking vivekanand calling Ram alcohol drinkers, or cow as most favorite food of our rishis can have no place as a saint or role model.

And if he has, then they should apologise for filing cases against DU, NCERT or Karunanidhi.


On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anil Bhanot wrote:

I agree with Sachin's view on this attack on Vivekananda by Agniveer but the Ramakrshina order does need to grow out of equating all religions as same.
Other points-
1. Meat eating or veg. has no impact on spiritual experience. Taking life without purpose is wrong but there are enlightened spiritual people who have no veg and can only eat meat. The Rishis in the Himalayas in winter probably had to eat meat unless they learnt to survive on air through Yoga and may be Agniveer ji knows those techniques. He should let the India's poor belt know.

2. I agree that today cow is a unifying symbol for Hindus to respect and it would be irresponsible to say that beef is ok to be eaten. Many Sikhs have however now started eating beef in the West and the odd Hindu eats the Hamburger.

3. Agniveer ji has produced Swamiji's money exploits erroneously. Vivekananda had no money from Hindus and had to work for his travel costs. Whatever he saved he started the Ramakrisna order with.
Agniveer Ji's attack is on bad taste.

4. Smoking I do not know about but again I find these attacks in bad taste.

As for Hindu orgs. they need icons who have and are upholding the Dharmic values which go far deeper than these little outward signs that Agniveer ji is worried about.

Its silly to say that he said Rama and Krishna were drunkards. He may have said that they drank wine or whatever but the medical evidence here in the UK recommends you to drink 15 to 20 units a week for good health

It's a bit like the orthodox Hindus saying that onion and garlic is forbidden - well both of these clean the blood. So orthodox Hindus' satvic is the modern scientific Hindus' tamsic.

Having said that even in my house we would not use onion and garlic when cooking for an event like Havan ceremony. I suppose there is a bit of blind faith in all of us.

Take it easy Agniveer ji. You should look at some non-Hindus to take your frustrations out. We should criticize our errors of course but you are attacking for the sake of it. That is not good and Hindus have enough attacks from outsiders. Create unity not division among the already divided Hindus.


Anil Bhanot

Message sent from iPhone

On 7 Mar 2009, at 02:48, Agniveer wrote:


I have provided links to complete articles in the message and appeal to all to read the complete articles. The points that emerge are that:
a. vivekanand was a meat-eater and an incorrigible smoker, smoking even in front of ladies
b. he believed that our ancestors took pride in eating beef and beef was essential in all vedic acts
c. he believed that vedic gods were alcoholics
d. Ram, Krishna, Sita used to consume meat and alcohol
e. Prophet, jesus etc were great role models and islam is necessary for survival of Vedanta.

The last one may be a subjective assessment. But the previous 4 clearly show that his ideas were anti-thesis of what hindutva believes today. Also being a meat-eater and smoker, there is no way he can be termed a sanyasi.

Recently RSS/ABVP carried fierce opposition to a text 300 ramayan in Delhi University and went up to Supreme Court because the article carried adverse remarks on Ram, Sita, hanuman etc citing references from various Ramayans. Yes, I was leading that initiative. Similarly Karunanidhi drew flak for criticizing Sri Ram as alcoholic.

Under same measure, should we not clean our own house and remove such role models first before attacking others.

My point is limited - Vivekanand may be ragarded as another among millions of Babas that the country has produced. May be more popular among them because of his US visit and oratory skills. Same may be true of Mahesh Yogi or Ravi Shankar or Osho etc.

But today the sole icon of Hindutva in all calendars, posters, articles etc is Vivekanand. For a Hindutva that considers Cow as Mother and Ram/Sita/Krishna as perfect icons free from any addictions, there is no way any person having blatantly counterviews on these can be a role model - be it Vivekanand or Karunanidhi or Nehru or Romila Thapar.

For those Hindutva lovers who indulge in Prophet or Jesus bashing, there is no way such a person be the icon.

My objective is not to condemn Vivekanand. But simply that for Hindutva ideology of no beef and Jai Sri Ram, he cannot be an icon.
If someone believes in opposite, kindly provide evidences and disprove the evidences provided here.


On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Sachin Gupta wrote:


its true Swami was not at all apologetic about meat eating at all.
But this writing is biased and distorted even though it may be Quoting references.
for if someone is writing with a bias, the section would also be reflecting the same bias.
now reading it i realize it is written in bad taste.and partially drawing out some lines without the context of what is been said and without understanding the whole thrust of the argument or the ideas which were being misses trees for the wood.let one go to complete works of THE GREAT SWAMI and read for themselves and then freely draw there own conclusions. There is an example given by Sri Ramakrishna of the kites who even when fling high look only for garbage pit.
this is exactly the case here.
yous in the lord

To dear all,

I had only read the title and forwarded it without reading the whole text since it looked like one on hintutva written by Agniveer
now reading it i realize it is written in bad taste.and partially drawing out some lines without the context of what is been said and without understanding the whole thrust of the argument or the ideads which were being conveyed.
It was my mistake to have forward it without having it first read myself. i had only looked at the title abd the links provided.


Live for an ideal, and that one ideal alone. Let it be so great, so strong, that there may be nothing else left in the mind; no place for anything else, no time for anything else. - Swami Vivekananda.

''Uttishthata, jaagrata, praapya varaan nibodhata'' - Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached!'


On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Agniveer wrote:


Is it not a blunder or fraud to have Vivekananda as role model for Hindutva? As per authentic sources (few reproduced below), he represented:
a. Beef eating as hallmark of glorious Vedic culture
b. Meat and beef as necessity for revival of our nation
c. Ram, Sita, Krishna etc being drunkards and meat-eaters
d. A chain smoker, who despite claiming to be sanyasi indulged shamelessly in this addiction, even in front of ladies
e. Prophet and Jesus being great teachers of world, God incarnate and messengers of equality and peace, among rare role-models of world.
f. Islam being necessary for survival of Vedanta!
g. Money being more important than concern for humanity.

If despite these blatant holes in his ideology, he is still the greatest role model for RSS, VHP and adorns all their speeches, writings, calendars, photos, symbols etc, why not have same kind of followership for a Nehru, Jinnah, etc. And if he is justified as role model, does not all the hoopla over cow-protection, islam, ram krishna being ideals become hoax?

Please refer to following sources to check veracity:
VIVEKANANDA A BIOGRAPHY by Swami Nikhilananda (Published 1953)

Now some selected excerpts:

"Orthodox brahmins regarded with abhorrence the habit of eating animal food. The Swami courageously told them about the eating of beef by the brahmins in Vedic times. One day, asked about what he considered the most glorious period of Indian history, the Swami mentioned the Vedic period, when 'five brahmins used to polish off one cow.' He advocated animal food for the Hindus if they were to cope at all with the rest of the world in the present reign of power and find a place among the other great nations, whether within or outside the British Empire."

Instances are found in the Râmâyana* and the Mahâbhârata* of the drinking of wine and the taking of meat by Rama and Krishna, whom they worship as God. Sita Devi vows meat, rice, and a thousand jars of wine to the river-goddess, Gangâ!*

"Embracing Sitâ with both his arms, Kâkutstha (Râma) made her drink pure Maireya wine, even as Indra makes Shachi partake of nectar.Servants quickly served flesh-meat variously dressed, and fruits of various kinds for the use of Rama."

- "(I saw) both of them (Krishna and Arjuna) drunk with Madhvâsava (sweet spirituous liquor made from honey), both adorned with sandal paste, garlanded, and wearing costly garments and beautiful ornaments."(Udyoga, LVIII. 5).
- "Be merciful to us, O goddess, and I shall, on my return home, worship thee with a thousand jars of arrack (spirituous liquor) and rice well-dressed with flesh-meat" (Ramayana).
3. Next para:

Whatever one or the other may say, the real fact, however, is that the nations who take the animal food are always, as a rule, notably brave, heroic and thoughtful. The nations who take animal food also assert that in those days when the smoke from Yajnas used to rise in the Indian sky and the Hindus used to take the meat of animals sacrificed, then only great religious geniuses and intellectual giants were born among them; but since the drifting of the Hindus into the Bâbâji's vegetarianism, not one great, original man arose midst them.
"There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; "
About vegetarian diet I have to say this — first, my Master was a vegetarian; but if he was given meat offered to the Goddess, he used to hold it up to his head. The taking of life is undoubtedly sinful; but so long as vegetable food is not made suitable to the human system through progress in chemistry, there is no other alternative but meat-eating. So long as man shall have to live a Râjasika (active) life under circumstances like the present, there is no other way except through meat-eating. It is true that the Emperor Asoka saved the lives of millions of animals by the threat of the sword; but is not the slavery of a thousand years more dreadful than that? Taking the life of a few goats as against the inability to protect the honour of one's own wife and daughter, and to save the morsels for one's children from robbing hands — which of these is more sinful? Rather let those belonging to the upper ten, who do not earn their livelihood by manual labour, not take meat; but the forcing of vegetarianism upon those who have to earn their bread by labouring day and night is one of the causes of the loss of our national freedom.

He implies that vegetarian food made us slave!!

You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.

The perfect religion is the Vedic religion. The Vedas have two parts, mandatory and optional. The mandatory injunctions are eternally binding on us. They constitute the Hindu religion. The optional ones are not so. These have been changing and been changed by the Rishis to suit the times. The Brahmins at one time ate beef and married Sudras. [A] calf was killed to please a guest.
So far the journey has been very beautiful. The purser has been very kind to me and gave me a cabin to myself. The only difficulty is the food — meat, meat, meat. Today they have promised to give me some vegetables.

The result of this steady work in the West and the tremendous work of a month in India upon the Bengalee constitution is "diabetes". It is a hereditary foe and is destined to carry me off, at best, in a few years' time. Eating only meat and drinking no water seems to be the only way to prolong life — and, above all, perfect rest for the brain.

10. Vivekananda in Public: Hindus Should not Kill any Animal for Food
"What business has a man to kill a cow, a goat, or any other animal for food?" Volume 3, "Buddhistic India" Feb. 2 1900
Vivekananda in Private: Hindus Should Eat Meat - Half a Pound a Day
Per-Person Recommended
"Q. Is it feasible for us Bengalis, poor as we are, to take meat?
Swamiji: Why not? You can afford to have it in small quantities. Half a pound a day is quite enough."

Volume 5, Conversations and Dialogues, IX

11. Vivekananda's Sense of Noble Service to Humanity
"I am quite satisfied with my task in life. I have been much more
active than a Sannyasin ought to be. Now I will disappear from society
altogether. The touch of this world is degenerating me, I am sure, so
it is time to be off. Work has no more value beyond purifying the
heart. My heart is pure enough; why shall I bother my head about doing
good to others?" Volume 9, Letter LXXXV Feb. 6th 1896

Vivekananda: In It For 'Quick Money'
"I had a lecture here [Los Angeles] last night. The hall was not
crowded, as there was very little advertisement, but a good-sized
audience though. I hope they were pleased. If I feel better, I am
going to have classes in this city soon. I am on the business path
this time, you know. Want a few dollars quick, if I can."

Volume 9, Letter CLIX Dec. 9th 1899
"I am making money fast - twenty-five dollars a day now. Soon I will
work more and get fifty dollars a day. In San Francisco I hope to do
better still - where I go in two or three weeks. Good again - better,
I say - as I am going to keep the money all to myself and not squander
it anymore. And then I will buy a little place in the Himalayas... And
the whole world may go to ruin round my ears, I would not care."
Volume 9, Letter CLXI Dec. 27th 1899



At 7:34 PM, Anonymous D'Mello tu to gaya said...

Hello Agniveer, Agrawal, Bhanot and others,

Neither you, nor I, nor RSS, nor Karunanidhi possesses the intellectual acumen, purity or purpose, detachment of spirit, depth of devotion, or determination of renunciation to comment on Hinduism and/or Vedic religion, much less on Vivekananda.

The comments here are so shallow, biased, non-contextual, and uninformed that I am not certain whether to laugh at them out of contempt, or feel sorry at them out of pity.

None of you have read Vivekananda's complete works (including letters), nor M's life of Ramakrishna, nor works by the other disciples like Saradananda.

Kindly get into the mind of Vivekananda before commenting on him, since people like you and I are rather like worms before him.

PS For Agniveer:

Your name 'Agniveer is a joke' - drop it at once.

You possess neither the tejas of 'Agni' nor the rajas of 'Veer'.


Post a Comment

<< Home