I was actually reading the Ramayan, one of my favourite books when I was young, yet again. Due to association of GM I am able to draw more devotion from reading than I did before. There I happened to glance on the personality of Guha(who is a forest tribe leader who renders a lot of service to Sri Rama) and Sri Rama regards him as his friend. There it is described that the diet Guha used was composed of fruits, roots, meat and fish. So if I looked from a perspective of a new devotee on the path, it will appear a great anomaly of breaking regulatory principles. But when I look at the independence of the descent of bhakti devi and the feeling that Guha has for the Lord then I can easily bypass these anomaly. It also came to my mind about how devotees were bewildered when they see a picture of cowherd boys fishing, or bhima eating meat as they happen to not fitting their mind well. So they have to always say that it is a sastric interpolation and live in denial. It is even more bewildering to a devotee when I mention to him that BVT lot of books when he was still not following a vegetarian diet. He just can't believe me.
Looking from the Absolute perspective, everything exists within Krsna but he is outside of everything(bhedabheda) , in his play he can use his energies in any way for fishing etc. I don't think there is any difference between krsna's fishing or krsna's eating any food in goloka( as everything is conscious there) but the thing is the center is rightly placed.
Similarly from a earthly perspective Krsna recommends deer skin to sit. Obviously you need to kill a deer for that. But Sri Chaitanya shows the way for living more in harmony with nature and he abjures the use of deer skin too. Like GM said, with evolution, man had found a way of most holistically living with nature in the East. And if he found new insight(like how meat is not that advisable in the yogic sadhana) then he would minimize that usage. But still even in areas like Mayan civilization where the concept of strict vegetarianism didn't arise they did not abuse nature and they acknowledged the gifts which nature provided them. This resulted in nature being maintained in its pristine glory in South America till the colonial exploitative mentality took over.
So what I was basically thinking is that through my conversation with a lot of devotees( even highly respectable ones like Satyaraja prabhu), I find they are hellbent on proving that only in kali yuga regulatory principles are being broken; also following in prabhupada spirit they try their best to prove how jesus did not recommend eating meat, only most fallen people ate meat or drank any wine, and how the animal will kill the man in his next life 1,000 times etc. Many devotees will not be able to read a person like Aquinas and appreciate his feeling just because he ate meat or has taken wine once.
Some kind of pride comes upon them on following these rules.
Obviously I am not saying that we all should break all these rules but see the rules as a very good practice of living cordially with nature which the Gosvamis did. And hopefully it does not make us feel that we cannot accept any insight from anymore if their dietary practice etc doesn't exactly match ours.
Just some rambling thoughts I guess.
Archana siddhi had a question today on the call wherein she expressed surprise at a statement from Manu samhita which says that it is natural to indulge in meat eating, drinking and sexual intercourse but abstention gives great benefits.
I don;t know why devotees get surprised at this. Maybe prabhupada made it a point to make devotees realize how the earlier yugas were completely pure with none of these principles being violated and hence we need to follow them. But that has led to devotees not being able to see things like I listed above in the post. Agastya issuing a decree from brahmans not to partake meat or sukracarya;s decree for wine illustrate the same principle that abstention has great benefits. Trying to make it like black and white issue: no person who breaks the reg can be spiritual is a problem which many devotees face. Come on after drinking wine and having fish aren't jesus or aquinas or bhima or for that matter nishad raj( lord rama's devotee) more spiritual than many devotees.
I think I like how Babhru approaches people when they ask why he doesn't drink: is it a prohibition? He toes the line that abstention bestows benefits not explaining to him which hell corresponds to which reg. Most kshatriyas in earlier yugas would be drinking molten iron and would be eaten by goats then. Native americans and mayans have more spiritual content than many PETA guys today who are vegetarians.
I hope some introspection will help devotees reexamine the regs to put them in perspective and follow them without having feeling as if it is the greatest thing to do and it is something special they are doing. many people in India follow the regs with ease but have hardly got much spiritual content(rigid Brahmans for instance) . Upanishads including Gita speak about conquering lust, greed and anger and regs are just a means not the end.
I agree with the general idea you're putting forth but this one stuck out at me:
This resulted in nature being maintained in its pristine glory in South America till the colonial exploitative mentality took over.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. It may have been the case for the most part, and there is no doubt that those cultures (partly out of deeper understanding and partly out of necessity) had a far deeper regard for nature than most cultures today. However I have heard or read somewhere that there were mass migrations in south and central America when the resources in a given region were exhausted and the people had to move elsewhere or die of starvation--at least that's one theory put forth to explain the disappearance of the Mayans.
I agree with the general idea you're putting forth but this one stuck out at me:I'm not sure this is entirely true. It may have been the case for the most part, and there is no doubt that those cultures (partly out of deeper understanding and partly out of necessity) had a far deeper regard for nature than most cultures today. However I have heard or read somewhere that there were mass migrations in south and central America when the resources in a given region were exhausted and the people had to move elsewhere or die of starvation--at least that's one theory put forth to explain the disappearance of the Mayans.
Maybe what you are saying is true. I am just putting the general idea which you agree with. The details I used may have some mistakes.