Tattva-viveka
Food rituals.
Philip Breakenridge - May 11, 2007 7:10 pm
Recently, I was having a discussion with a brahmin initiated ISKCON devotee who is a very dear friend of mine. I told her that I had attended a dinner sponsored by a local vegan group, and that it was nice to eat with people who actually cared about what they were putting into their bodies.
Her response to me was: "They're still eating sin. In the next life they will come back as carrots and have their heads ripped off."
I was shocked by what she had to say, since she's actually quite liberal minded and I consider her to be one of my siksa gurus. It seemed a little presumptuous to me, since some of the people present at the dinner could have been on a spiritual path and perhaps offered their food to the Lord in their own way. Perhaps what she said is technically true, but it comes off as quite harsh and judgmental to me. I don't think these kinds of views make KC very attractive to spiritual seekers.
At the same time, I confessed that I had forgotten that it was Ekadasi and ate oatmeal for breakfast. She told me that I had eaten "demon stool." I view Ekadasi as an occasion to eat simply in order to gain spiritual benefits, but I keep hearing about how much "sin" is contained in grains. Perhaps my veiwpoint is a bit off.
What do you think? What is the proper, balanced view of these matters?
Vivek - May 11, 2007 8:39 pm
If i was introduce to K.C through your liberal minded friend like this i would have ran miles away from Krsna and become an atheist.
Grant Upson - May 11, 2007 8:39 pm
This is also a topic that interests me, and one that I struggle with -- especially given the seemingly extreme sastric descriptions of reactions resulting from non-observance of ekadasi. I took a friend to the GP festival at Iskcon once, and she was perturbed by the following purport (S.P. CC Adi 15.9), which was read during the lecture program. I tried to explain (and perhaps wrongly and a-siddhantically so) that Jiva Goswami's selected quotation is deliberately "hyperbolic" in order to stress the importance of ekadasi. Again, perhaps I have the wrong conception, but I was trying to soften the impact of a statement that was especially off-putting to a curious neophyte:
"From the very beginning of His childhood life Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekādaśī day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, there is a quotation from the Skanda Purāṇa admonishing that a person who eats grains on Ekādaśī becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuṇṭha planet, he falls down."
Vivek - May 11, 2007 8:44 pm
Again the fall theory comes, with falling from Vaikuntha
Vrindavandas - May 11, 2007 11:14 pm
Eating demon stool huh? I got a good laugh out of that one. This sounds like one of those experiences you just need to take with a grain of salt. If this devotee gives you inspiration in other ways, then admire her for that. I am not going to get into the technical points here because I don't think it is worth discussing. I stopped eating grains completely about 14 months ago, went completely raw vegan and feel great. That's just me. Try to observe Ekadasi to the best of your ability. Prabhupada said "Chant and be happy", Bobby McFerrin said "Don't worry be happy." Two great sayings I like to live my life by. 
Swami - May 11, 2007 11:27 pm
"There is no fault in eating meat, drinking liquor, or sexual intercourse, for that is the natural tendency of the living entities, but abstention yields great benefit." Manu-samhita (5.56)--my favorite book
Otherwise those who eat sattvik foods will reap sattvik results, etc. is a good way to look at this issue.
As for offering food, this is best, but the idea in this is not about avoiding sin, it is a practical way of expressing love for one's Deity. The Deity eats the love with which the offering is made. No love, no real offering, however well the technical procedures are followed. In sakhya rasa the food is eaten first by the devotee and then the best part is offered to Krsna (after the sakha encounters it).
Scripture is full of statements about eating. I think that is why Nehru called Hinduism a "kitchen religion." Many scriptural statements are very strong, like the one cited by Grant. However, in all of these rules, many of which are contradictory, their is an essential teaching that the rule seeks to help one arrive at. The essense is that in the very least one should grow to acknowledge one's indebtedness for this life and its bounty and thus live with a spirit of gratitude. On the higher end one lives in love with God and one's coneption of God is such that one lives to feed him.
Regrding Ekadasi, Srila Prabhupada stressed not eating grains and that if the whole world did that twice a month, it would created a surplus of grain for distribution. So he thought practically about it. Ekadasi is really "Hari's Day," and the idea is that Hari should be feasting on this day more than that his devotee should be fasting. The latter comes about as a result of the former--no time to eat, too busy cooking!
Swami - May 12, 2007 12:10 am
Again the fall theory comes, with falling from Vaikuntha
Since we know that no one falls from Vaikuntha, or that once enlightened one does not retrurn to ignorance, we also know that this verse from the Skanda Purana is an instance in which the scripture has taken a license to exaggerate for effect. You were correct, Grant.
Swami - May 12, 2007 4:01 am
It is also important the stress that if one is following a rule properly, one should be come acquainted with its purpose and thus be able to identify with the same purpose when it is expressed by others, however imperfectly.
In this instance one actually acquainted with the purpose behind offering one’s food to Krsna would have responded differently, understanding that with the limited knowledge a group of vegans may have, they are attempting to eat without exploiting. Simply condemning them and insisting that they must follow a particular rule of offering makes the rule out to be the goal. This is what is called niyamagraha, something detrimental to bhakti.
The rule is about loving Krsna, and love is devoid of exploitation. So the vegans are beginning to love through their eating habits. Furthermore the rule is about offering food to Krsna for his pleasure, not offering one’s own food to Krsna so that it may be blessed. Still we do not condemn those who are offering their food to Krsna, asking him to bless it for them.
Gopisvara Dasa - May 12, 2007 9:16 pm
Swami wrote;"There is no fault in eating meat, drinking liquor, or sexual intercourse, for that is the natural tendency of the living entities, but abstention yields great benefit." Manu-samhita (5.56)--my favorite book
As much as I relish the broadminded understanding and see how niyamagraha is a huge problem, how are we to read "no fault" when the reactions to these things are stressed over and over again? Also,with all the Gaudiya literatures, I find it really hard to believe that this is your favorite book. Are you playing purvapaskin? It feels like there is more to be said.
Swami - May 12, 2007 10:00 pm
Swami wrote;
with all the Gaudiya literatures, I find it really hard to believe that this is your favorite book. Are you playing purvapaskin? It feels like there is more to be said.
I also said
Which means "Just kidding."
Otherwise I agree. We need a Food sutra that harmonizes all of the diverse and appaently contradictory scriptural staements concerning diet.
Syamasundara - May 13, 2007 1:21 am
Wow, quite a character your brahmin friend, Philip. Actually by conscience devotees should feel very sympathetic to the vegan ideology, considering how much they are supposed to care for cows. The point of avoiding exploitation should also resonate strongly with us, I really don't see the point in going so heavy; that's so not Bhaktivinoda style.
As far as the Manu Samhita, I don't understand why it says entities instead of humans, since we are the only ones that drink alcohol.
At any rate, without looking at the Sanskrit, it is hard to say what is really implied, but I think it would be safe to interprete "there is no fault" as "it is natural for humans", in other words, it's understandable for humans to have certain pulsions, it's part of human nature, but our nature is transcendental and has nothing to do with our current body, so why cater to it, while we could be much better of?
Vivek - May 13, 2007 2:03 am
Obviously there is no fault in doing all those things but to stress the opposite the scriptures can go to the other extreme, depicting severe reaction for every one of these things(like meat eating or intoxication). But in general sense gratification done by the way of acknowledging the dieties or nature exempts one from sinful reaction(obviously when treading bhakti or even jnana marga we can understand sense gratification to be an obstacle in any sort of transcendental realisation). In the S.B there is a verse which depicts even foeticide done for rather ridiculous reason. The big "sin" is performed by Maharaja bharata's wives but it doesnt look like they will be burning in hell for doing that http://srimadbhagavatam.com/9/20/34/en .
I think in today's times preaching which conveys some severe hellish reactions is very much outmoded. But then we do have to say that extremely severe arrogant and proud people commiting intentional violence do suffer reactions(for eg they may not get a good human birth or may get a animal birth). I am just thinking how to get around these ideas of severe punishments while preaching while at the same time showing the idea of karma and justice.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 13, 2007 3:57 am
I am just thinking how to get around these ideas of severe punishments while preaching while at the same time showing the idea of karma and justice.
I see no problem in addressing this in general terms: that one's actions will create a reaction--that's just basic physics. Exploitation of the environment increases suffering. If we cause pain to another we will have to pay for that somehow or another, at some time.
I would, however, definitely leave out what form the reaction would take, i.e., becoming a carrot (and which sastra did THAT idea come from??), being boiled (as in Kumbhupaka), etc.
Syamasundara - May 14, 2007 2:13 am
I would, however, definitely leave out what form the reaction would take, i.e., becoming a carrot (and which sastra did THAT idea come from??), being boiled (as in Kumbhupaka), etc.
Haha, I don't think it was a quotation, but there are statements such that if you eat beef you will have to be reborn as many times as that cow's hairs, so I guess it can be applied to anything else, and that devotee was using carrots as an example of what a vegan could eat. Personally I don't only chop the head of carrots, I also cut them lengthwise in 4 strips, and then I even dice them 
Eating is such a pivot of our daily life, and the fact that we can turn that into what will deliver us in the form of prasada is astounding and belitteling.
JAYA JAGANNATHA!