Watch "“Neo Advaita Misunderstood or Revolutionary?" on YouTube

[V Subrahmanian]

https://youtube.com/shorts/2Tf1PrlXXEY?si=W9JOnhTZVcCVCzWn 

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Pranam to all,

Very appropro You tube short. However it has been shown that Swami Sarvapriyananda was eating fish and meat; this contrary to ahara for a sanyasi. And it was not bhiksha in a forest but rather sitting on chair in a western style dining table with cooks serving.  As an Odiya in his purva ashrama that would be permissible but  NOT as a sanyasi. If true than he is paakhandi.

Ravi Chandrasekhara

On Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 03:41:53 AM CST, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

https://youtube.com/shorts/2Tf1PrlXXEY?si=W9JOnhTZVcCVCzWn

_______________________________________________

Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:

listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

https://youtu.be/Zb0GjC6-xPA?si=f8fok_1O8f_P2zD0 (note he only says that at his center they don’t eat beef because “it is a cultural thing”).

https://www.facebook.com/newstodaychannelhyd/videos/swami-sarvapriyananda-is-a-hindu-monk-sannyasi-head-of-the-vedanta-society-of-ne/1554218015929326/

I would like him to address the topic not distanced by the context of “spiritual life”, but directly addressing the core issue of himsa-ahimsa and him being a sannyasi having plenty of options today (which he evades saying they follow the rule of eating what is given at their Ashrama). You can view things practically, philosophically, religiously and/or ethically, and chart out a certain path in your existence sorting out the choices life presents to you - but you know your decisions and personal representation of yourself and the religion carry weight in the public domain where you are teacher and role model. So, beyond my opinion on his meat eating, rather I would first want him to explain directly and personally, his meat-eating post-Sannyasa in a presently veg-friendly modern setting, being knowledgeable of its social contours and constraints (that cannot simply be mapped 1-1 onto the Bengali world of Sri Ramakrishna), addressing in particular the making-light of the killing precursor to the diet - perhaps a neo RKM vedanta-tarka being used here but it needs lot more clarity and transparency - especially now that the cat is virally out of the bag. I dare say if he had to pull the trigger that shocks the animal for his dining, or employ whatever other standard method of killing, he may choose otherwise and instead run the tractor over the “poor” rice paddies and rip out the beans stalks. That inconsistency in behaviour once distanced from the crime is exactly what we don’t want to see in a Sannyasi and why people revere them. So the topic matters from this angle as well.

Of course, we can address it independently from the traditional standpoint of Sannyasa dharma.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/855596018.885584.1764204161656%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Suresh Balaraman]

Truth is plants-vegetables-grains etc also have life. It’s not gory to see them being cooked, but personally vegetarian food is delicious and good for humans. That doesn’t mean non-vegetarian foods are less spiritual, Abrahamic faith is a classic example.

Suresh Balaraman

On Nov 26, 2025, at 11:12 PM, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q4FVEtMJfO9Q7ix9Qdw%3DpwrL4bGzHR3%3DOkvasuYctnBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

This is the reply Google AI gave for the question: Was Swami Vivekananda vegetarian?

And the reply is true, as known from other sources too. Swami Sarvapriyananda, a follower of that tradition could well be a nonveg.

No, Swami Vivekananda was not vegetarian; he was a non-vegetarian who consumed fish and meat. He believed that animal protein was necessary for strength and energy, and he cooked and ate meat, particularly a spicy mutton curry, for himself and his disciples. He also noted that obtaining vegetarian meals was difficult in 19th-century America. 

Dietary habits: He was known to enjoy meat and even cooked dishes like spicy mutton curry for his friends and disciples.

Beliefs: Vivekananda advised some Hindus to eat meat, believing it provided more strength and energy. He viewed vegetarianism as an ideal but felt that depending on meat was necessary for physical requirements until vegetables could be bred to provide sufficient nutrition.

Cultural context: Being from Bengal, he came from a community that traditionally eats fish and meat.

Practicality: When traveling in America, he found it difficult to find vegetarian meals and would eat meat to survive and continue his work. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/5FE1DEB4-45CD-445C-AA51-EC7A785EB2D5%40gmail.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste,

That doesn’t mean non-vegetarian foods are less spiritual, Abrahamic faith is a classic example.

What makes an act spiritual or not spiritual is not merely the act but how that act measures up against the dharma of the person based on his varna and ashrama. And for a person occupying the sannyasa ashrama in Vaidika dharma, unless there has been a calamity whereby that act may temporarily be considered an apadh dharma, consuming non-vegetarian food is a strictly prohibited act. It is against dharma. And just because a person of Abrahamic faith may eat non-vegetarian food without transgressing his dharma, it does not provide licence to a sannyasi in Vaidika dharma to eat such food because it is

"Better to perform one's own dharma though devoid of praise and merit than the dharma of another well discharged. Better is death in one's own dharma than to perform the dharma of another, which is productive of danger." (Gita, 3.35)   

To abide by dharma is more important in the case of a sannyasi than in the case of an ordinary person because, as Shankara says, while the field of dharma is grahasthashrama, the custodian of dharma is the sannyasi. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Subbu-ji,

Swami Vivekananda eating non-vegetarian food during his visits to America cannot be a justification for a sannyasi residing in America today to eath non-vegetarian food. The America of the 19th century was a very different place than it is today. Many people may not know this but Indians were categorized along with the African-blacks and were not permitted to enter and reside in the US until the Luce Cellar Act of 1946 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 had been passed. It was only after 1965 that any sizable immigration of Indians to the US took place. Before then it was not at all easy to find vegetarian food in a pervasively non-vegetarian America. So, it is not fair to compare Swami Vivekananda's food habits in the America of the 19th century with those of a modern-day sannyasi located in the America of today.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If his followers believe that he is sanyasi as well as paramArtha jnAni then his followers explanation would be : he must be having the foods like this as per his prArabdha karma, if he himself does any justification with regard to his food habits then it is his avidyA lesha and anyway whatever he eats whatever he drinks hardly a matter of concern😊 And if he is ONLY a sanyasi in the shrotreeya category, he can eat anything as permitted in his mission 😊 Only traditional Amnaya sanyasi will have to stick to strict vegetarian foods 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

1. Meat-eating as a part of shAstrik-vidhi is permissible as it is enjoined by shAstra.

2. Meat-eating which is not a part of shAstrik-vidhi is impermissible as it is prohibited by shAstra.

3. Vidhi-nishedha applies to only ajnAnI. Hence, 1 and 2 are applicable only to ajnAnI.

4. For jnAnI, there is no vidhi-nishedha. He can appear either as renouncing all karmAs, or as engaging in enjoined karmAs, or as involved in prohibited karmAs. GItA 6.31, GUDhArtha DIpikA - यावत्तु तस्य बाधितानुवृत्त्या शरीरादिदर्शनमनुवर्तते तावत्प्रारब्धकर्मप्राबल्यात्सर्वकर्मत्यागेन वा याज्ञवल्क्यादिवद् विहितेन कर्मणा वा जनकादिवत् प्रतिषिद्धेन कर्मणा वा दत्तात्रेयादिवत् सर्वथा येन केनापि रूपेण वर्तमानोऽपि व्यवहरन्नपि स योगी ब्रह्माहमस्मीति विद्वान्मयि परमात्मन्येवाभेदेन वर्तते।

If Swami SarvapriyAnanda ji is accepted as a jIvanmukta, no comments can be made about his meat-eating as no vidhi-nishedha are applicable to him. 

If Swami Sarvapriyananda ji is accepted as a sAdhaka, his meat-eating is incorrect as it is not part of any shAstrika-vidhi and is hence prohibited by shAstra.

This is the response in accordance with shAstra without any personal emotional bias. It all depends on how one sees Swamiji, as a jIvanmukta or as a sAdhaka!! Same arguments apply to Swami Vivekananda.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Sudanshu-ji,

If Swami SarvapriyAnanda ji is accepted as a jIvanmukta, no comments can be made about his meat-eating as no vidhi-nishedha are applicable to him. 

A jivanmukta is beyond the four ashramas, so yes, in the case of a jivanmukta no judgment can be made about his actions and that includes mean-eating if he should be doing it. 

But what is the mark by which we may come to know whether he is a jivanmukta or not and by which knowledge we may, if he should be one, refrain from judging his actions? After all, the Swami presents himself to us in the garb of a sannyasi and sannyasa is an ashrama within the varnashrama order, so what is it that should determine that we hold back from judging his actions even when he is visibly transgressing the dharma of a sannyasi? I ask this question because anyone may be a jivanmukta behind the mask of his/her outward appearance and if we are to suspend all out judgments about the actions of individuals on account of the possibilty of the individual being a jivanmukta, it would lead to a laissez faire situation.  

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Krishna Kashyap]

In addition to what Sudhamshu-ji has said, we should also remember this:

If a person is a jñānī and a public figure, he must still follow certain rules and conduct himself responsibly, because loka-saṅgraha — guiding and upholding the world — becomes part of his duty. As the Gītā states:
“Lokasaṅgraham evāpi sampaśyan kartum arhasi” (3.20).

But if a jñānī lives in seclusion — in a cave, away from society, without followers or public influence — then he has no role in guiding others. In such a case, he is free to act as he wishes, without concern for public example.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAgNXK_sd3p2N7Ozv6uB1x6WHRpTrVfcz9Q%2BDkZ6EV%2BVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

For jnAnI, there is no vidhi-nishedha. He can appear either as renouncing all karmAs, or as engaging in enjoined karmAs, or as involved in prohibited karmAs.

 

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

He can involved in prohibited activities/karma-s also!!  This is really news to me.  So you mean to say he can do whatever he wants to do without giving any heed to shAstra vidhi-nishedha !!?? Since Atma jnAna is just sva-hrudaya pratyaya and no one should dare to question it, he himself can think that he is brahman and can do whatever he wants to do and he can always claim that since I am brahman I am always disassociated with my upAdhi-s and in whatever activities these upAdhi-s being engaged whether it is dharma para or dharma bAhira hardly a matter of concern to ME ( the big ME) 😊

 

• But as you know bhAshyakAra says something else with regard to this…In short he is not ‘svecchaachaari’. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 1:19 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Watch "“Neo Advaita Misunderstood or Revolutionary?" on YouTube

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAgNXK_sd3p2N7Ozv6uB1x6WHRpTrVfcz9Q%2BDkZ6EV%2BVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Chittaranjan prabhu ji.

But what is the mark by which we may come to know whether he is a jivanmukta or not and by which knowledge we may, if he should be one, refrain from judging his actions?

I am afraid that we can never come to know whether Mr X is a jIvanmukta. We can make imagine Mr X as a jIvanmukta, but we cannot ascertain the correctness of the imagination, because there are no tools therefor. 

 

I ask this question because anyone may be a jivanmukta behind the mask of his/her outward appearance and if we are to suspend all out judgments about the actions of individuals on account of the possibilty of the individual being a jivanmukta, it would lead to a laissez faire situation.  

I don't think it will be a laissez faire situation because the emphasis of shAstra is on oneself and not on the other. So, I have to see whether I am doing what ShAstra has enjoined for me. And actually there ends the matter. Let Swami Sarvapriyananda do what he is doing. The important thing is - what I am doing.

And you are well aware that in drishTi-srishTi-vAda (which is not at all laissez faire), jIvanmukti is arthavAda and is merely for the purpose of eulogy of jnAna. So, it is an actual reality that I have to be concerned with myself alone. I have to see that meat-eating has been prohibited by ShAstra through "न हिंस्यात्सर्वा भूतानि", and hence I am prohibited from eating. That is it.

The question is however valid at the time of choosing a Guru as everyone would like to have a jIvanmukta guru. So, the answer can be at best only this -- whoever is imagined as a jIvanmukta, like in a dream, can be chosen as a guru. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

But if a jñānī lives in seclusion — in a cave, away from society, without followers or public influence — then he has no role in guiding others. In such a case, he is free to act as he wishes, without concern for public example.

• Whether he is in public or in seclusion he has to be true to himself and he has to be free from kAma krOdhAdi arishadvarga.  He cannot think and do some dharma bAhira activities just because of ‘no one seeing it’.  Na cha pratishiddhasevAprAptiH ekatvapratyayOtpatteH prAgevApratishiddatvAt…na hi rAtrau kUpe kaNvake vaa patitaH uditOpi saviari patati tasminneva…clarifies bhAshyakAra in chAdOgya shruti bhAshya. 

[Bhaskar YR]

I don't think it will be a laissez faire situation because the emphasis of shAstra is on oneself and not on the other. So, I have to see whether I am doing what ShAstra has enjoined for me. And actually there ends the matter. Let Swami Sarvapriyananda do what he is doing. The important thing is - what I am doing.

• Yad yadaacharati shreshTah tattadevetarO janaah, sa yat pramANam kurute lOkastadanu vartate…says lord in geeta…if you following this Swamiji as your role model then you are tempted to follow him ( hope you know the meaning of you here 😊 )

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Sudanshu-ji,

I am afraid that we can never come to know whether Mr X is a jIvanmukta. We can make imagine Mr X as a jIvanmukta, but we cannot ascertain the correctness of the imagination, because there are no tools therefor. 

Yes, that is what I was driving at.

I don't think it will be a laissez faire situation because the emphasis of shAstra is on oneself and not on the other. So, I have to see whether I am doing what ShAstra has enjoined for me. And actually there ends the matter. Let Swami Sarvapriyananda do what he is doing. The important thing is - what I am doing.

I don’t agree with that line of reasoning because you are not making a distinction between the injunctions of the shastras which pertain to what my actions should be based on my svadharma and the thoughts that are liable to arise in my mind as well as the minds of people when they see the actions of people occupying responsible positions and which are liable to influence the way people behave in society. The Bhagavad Gita verse 3.21 which Bhaskar Prabhu-ji has pointed to is about the latter: “Whatever a great person does, others follow. Whatever standard he sets, the world pursues.” I don’t see why the topic of Swami Sarvapriyananda-ji actions, especially in relation to this BG verse, is beyond discussion just because with respect to actions I should be concerned with what the shastra prescribes for me. I would say that the absence of critical discussions on such topics is certainly liable to lead to laissez faire situations.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Chittaranjan prabhu ji.

I don’t agree with that line of reasoning because you are not making a distinction between the injunctions of the shastras which pertain to what my actions should be based on my svadharma and the thoughts that are liable to arise in my mind as well as the minds of people when they see the actions of people occupying responsible positions and which are liable to influence the way people behave in society.

I am not making any distinction. I am only saying the following - accept Swami Sarvapriyananda ji as a non-jIvanmukta, and then certainly his action of meat-eating is liable to be judged and categorised as incorrect. 

The Bhagavad Gita verse 3.21 which Bhaskar Prabhu-ji has pointed to is about the latter: “Whatever a great person does, others follow. Whatever standard he sets, the world pursues.” I don’t see why the topic of Swami Sarvapriyananda-ji actions, especially in relation to this BG verse, is beyond discussion just because with respect to actions I should be concerned with what the shastra prescribes for me. I would say that the absence of critical discussions on such topics is certainly liable to lead to laissez faire situations.

I think I could not communicate properly. I am with you that there can be and should be a discussion on this topic. In fact, I would personally like even Swamiji himself to clarify that meat-eating, not part of shAstrik-vidhi, is prohibited by shAstra for a person desirous of even abhyudaya, what to talk of nihshreyas.

I am only adding a bit - a person who would be regarding/imagining Swami Sarvapriyananda ji as jIvanmukta or Swami Vivekananda as jIvanmukta/avatAra would differ in respect of their personal criticism. And one cannot logically refute that.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Sudhanshu-ji,

Thank you for the clarification. It is good to know that you are not espousing a liberal position with regard to the shastras. It is comforting to know that since you are well-versed in the shastras and a highly regarded scholar on this list.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

If his followers believe that he is sanyasi as well as paramArtha jnAni then his followers explanation would be : he must be having the foods like this as per his prArabdha karma, if he himself does any justification with regard to his food habits then it is his avidyA lesha and anyway whatever he eats whatever he drinks hardly a matter of concern😊 And if he is ONLY a sanyasi in the shrotreeya category, he can eat anything as permitted in his mission 😊 Only traditional Amnaya sanyasi will have to stick to strict vegetarian foods 😊

From the many smileys in your post I can make out that it is meant to be half humorous and half sarcastic. :-)  What can I reply to it except to present you with another smiley, a big one.

😊

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes I wrote that on a lighter note.  But if you see some previous discussions about jnAni in this very list, it has been argued that he is NOT FREE from rAga-dvesha, he does have the vipareeta pratyaya, he too. Can, some time, behave eccentrically/abnormally (rAma’s example given how he experienced/suffered seta viraha Vedana 😊)  So, the bottom line is in advaita vedanta if anyone believed as paramArtha jnAni, he can do anything he want and no others should dare to question him even if he is engaging himself in pratishedha karma!! After all he only knows whether he is brahma jnAni or not and no external means nor his external questionable behavior would help us to see whether he is free from kAma-krOdhAdi dosha-s. 

 

By the way what is the purpose behind arjuna asking the lord about the characteristics of the sthita prajna!!??  Is sthita prajna is not paramArtha jnAni?? I read somewhere what is sAdhana for the mumukshu is the lakshaNa of the jnAni.  If jnAni is just like us due to his prArabdha karma phala and residues of avidyA lesha and he is also allowed to do pratishedha karma,  how can we say one is shreshTa/sampradaya vida / dharmapara ??  Just wondering. 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

I am not personally interested in discussing this topic. I think there are rather more important issues in Advaita! However, I appreciate that some might be concerned about what might be thought of as ‘bad behavior’ or ‘hypocritical’. Here are what are claimed to be Swamiji’s views on the topic according to Grok. I think the key point is: ‘Food matters "more or less," but it's "not all important."’ And ‘If offered non-veg in a context like travel, it might be accepted without attachment’. Surely the important point is that his teaching is possibly the best available in the West and criticism implied by this thread is misleading and unjustified.

 

### Swami Sarvapriyananda on Meat-Eating for Sannyasins

 

Yes, Swami Sarvapriyananda has addressed the topic of vegetarianism versus non-vegetarianism in the context of spiritual life, including for monks (sannyasins), in at least one recorded talk. As a sannyasin in the Ramakrishna Order (a modern Advaita Vedanta lineage), he aligns with the tradition's emphasis on a sattvic (pure, balanced) lifestyle, where vegetarianism is the norm for monastics to support mental clarity, ahimsa (non-violence), and inner purity. However, he presents it as an ideal rather than an absolute barrier to spirituality, drawing on Swami Vivekananda's pragmatic views.

 

#### Key Points from His Talk

In a Q&A session at the Vedanta Society of Southern California (clip titled *"Veg or Non-Vegetarian in Spiritual life?"*, ~3 minutes, from a longer discourse), Swami Sarvapriyananda responds to a question on whether diet impacts spirituality:

 

- **Vegetarianism as the Higher Ideal**: He states unequivocally that "vegetarianism is actually a higher truth" for spiritual aspirants. It fosters sattva guna (purity and harmony), making the mind more receptive to meditation and self-inquiry. Non-vegetarian food, being more rajasic (stimulating) or tamasic (dulling), can agitate the mind and body, indirectly hindering progress.

 

- **Practicality Over Dogma**: Referencing Swami Vivekananda, he notes that Hinduism has overemphasized food rules (e.g., "whether we shall eat with the left hand or the right hand"), diverting energy from core spiritual practices. Vivekananda warned this could lead to "a race of imbeciles" by fixating on externals. Sarvapriyananda echoes this: Food matters "more or less," but it's "not all important." Many spiritual traditions worldwide (e.g., Tibetan Buddhists eating meat due to environmental necessity) produce realized beings without strict vegetarianism.

 

- **For Sannyasins Specifically**: As monks, they follow the ashram rule of *bhiksha* (eating whatever is offered in moderation), but in practice, Ramakrishna Order sannyasins are strictly vegetarian. He explains: "We as monks... generally [eat] what's given to us... Hindu monks in general are strictly vegetarian." Cultural boundaries apply (e.g., no beef, out of respect for Hindu ahimsa toward cows), but the focus is on detachment from food preferences, not rigid prohibition. If offered non-veg in a context like travel, it might be accepted without attachment, but this is rare—vegetarianism is the default to embody non-violence.

 

- **Broader Context on Ahimsa**: In other talks (e.g., on the Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads), he ties diet to ahimsa as a tool for inner refinement, not judgment. Meat-eating isn't "sinful" per se but stems from desire, which binds the ego. True non-duality transcends such dualities, but starting with vegetarianism aids the journey.

 

#### Ramakrishna Order's Stance (Which He Upholds)

- Strict vegetarianism for sannyasins, as per Swami Vivekananda's guidance for monastic purity (though Vivekananda himself occasionally ate fish/mutton for health during travels).

- Lay devotees are encouraged toward vegetarianism but not mandated—focus on karma yoga and devotion matters more.

 

If you're seeking the full talk, search YouTube for "Swami Sarvapriyananda Veg or Non-Vegetarian in Spiritual life" (from Vedanta Vidyālayam channel). For deeper dives, his lectures on *Karma Yoga* or *Bhagavad Gita Ch. 17* (on the gunas and food) touch related themes.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Grok seems to be using the first link that I had posted. But the second link I posted (if not some AI edit) contradicts this statement:

"Ramakrishna Order's Stance (Which He Upholds)

Strict vegetarianism for sannyasins, as per Swami Vivekananda's guidance for monastic purity"

I expect Grok is mistaken about this stance of the Order.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002301dc5f98%24d4a71660%247df54320%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Dennis-ji,

I don't think anybody here is questioning Swami Sarvapriyananda's teaching or its excellence. The subject matter of this discussion is his actions as a sannyasi and not the efficacy of his teaching. I think enough has been said on the topic but since you raised some points, I would like to offer a few comments (just four):

1. Eating vegetarian food is not just a higher ideal as the Swami makes it out to be. It is what has been prescribed by the shastra for sannyasis. Whareas eating non-vegetarian food has been proscribed. By saying that it is just a higher ideal, the Swami is diluting the prescriptions of the shastra.

2. Even if we go by the Swami’s own statement that eating non-vegetarian food is a higher ideal, is there any justifiable reason for the Swami to not follow the ideal considering that vegetarian food is abundantly available in the US today?

3. Swami Vivekananda's statement with regard to Hinduism having overemphasized food rules has been taken out of context here. The focus of Swami Vivekananda’s statement was not Hinduism’s food rules but the degeneration of Brahmins whereby he was pointing to the fact that the Brahmins of his day were ignoring their higher ideals and were focusing on the small minutae of cooking vessels to be used, of what was to be eaten or not to be eaten etc, forgetting the more important higher ideals. To use that statement to justify the eating non-vegetarian food after donning the sannyasi’s role is, I think, quite questionable.

4. And finally,  Swami Sarvapriyananda's attempt to place meat-eating within a broader context of ahimsa and to say that it is not sinful but a rather inconsequential act stemming from desire amounts to a rewriting of the dharma-shastra!

Swami Sarvapriyananda-ji is a very popular and eloquent speaker and most of his talks are really excellent (though I have issues with one or two of them :-) ), so given that he has a large following and that people look upto him, I think it is all the more important that he should be seen to be not transgressing the prescriptive codes of the shastra. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste,

4. And finally,  Swami Sarvapriyananda's attempt to place meat-eating within a broader context of ahimsa and to say that it is not sinful but a rather inconsequential act stemming from desire amounts to a rewriting of the dharma-shastra!

I would like to add a clarification to this statement. There are certain sections of people for whom eating non-vegetarian food is permitted as per the rules of dharma, but for others and especially for sannyasis, it is a proscribed act. So to say that it is universally not sinful would be non-conformant with the prescriptions of the shastra - that is what I had meant.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[ravi chandrasekhara]

My concern is his example to his followers being that he’s a teacher. Once again I’m referring to his diet as a sanyasi. RK Paramahamsa was NOT. A sanyasi. Look at Rajneesh of Osho with women and Rolls Royce. In addition RKM advice re: diet for others is based on emotion, job, gym habits etc. But per shastras it depends on one’s varna, jati, kula, and sampradaya. Ravi Chandrasekhara MD

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625C54DCB4C4834F2F2898384DFA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

"By the way what is the purpose behind arjuna asking the lord about the characteristics of the sthita prajna!!??"

It is not to judge others' attainments but only to judge oneself.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A7081704442C6BB9B4F684DFA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

"By the way what is the purpose behind arjuna asking the lord about the characteristics of the sthita prajna!!??"

 

It is not to judge others' attainments but only to judge oneself.

 

praNAms Sri Akhilesh Ayer prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, it is not for judging the sthitaprajna but, as an adhyAtma sAdhaka (spiritual aspirant)will have to try to follow the person who attained the mental tranquility in extremely demanding situations.  For example, being a cricketer I used to follow the style of Sachin/Gavaskar as batter, I was eagerly following their talks, their practice styles, their dedication etc.  So it is quite common that the person who is in sAdhana mArga would want to see / follow the person who attained the pinnacle in that kshetra.  When Arjuna asked the lord this query, he wanted to know ‘how the sthita prajna behaves, how he talks, how he walks, how he sits etc. not to judge the sthitaprajna but to follow / understand his stature. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

2. Even if we go by the Swami’s own statement that eating non-vegetarian food is a higher ideal, is there any justifiable reason for the Swami to not follow the ideal considering that vegetarian food is abundantly available in the US today?

 

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is very valid question since Swamiji himself saying vegans are best suited for the spiritual sAdhana.  The food what we take plays an important role in our spiritual sAdhana coz. the mind through which we are doing this gets the strength from the subtle part of the food.  If I am right shankara bhagavatpAda talks about it in one of his prakaraNa-s and in chAndOgya also there is mention about it, there is some mantra which says some major/gross part of our food intake goes out as excreta, middle part gives the strength to muscles / flesh and the subtle part becomes the food for the mind.  So it can be said the function of mind in particular and antahkaraNa in general depends on the type of food what a spiritual aspirant would intake. sAtvik, rAjasik tAmasik feelings/thoughts are dominantly activated by taking sAtvik, rAjasik and tAmasik food respectively. That is why spiritual aspirants follow strict rules regarding the food to keep the mind sAtvik.  And IMO it is equally applicable for all the sincere sAdhaka-s irrespective of their respective varNa-Ashrama.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Pranams Bhaskarji,

It cannot possibly be the case that these criteria are for finding someone to imitate/follow, since these criteria precisely cannot be judged from externals. Merely because someone shows anger does not mean that they are in truth affected by it, for example. Or take for example BG 2.69: "That which is night to all beings, then the self-controlled man is awake; when all beings are awake, that is night for the sage who sees" -- again, this cannot possibly be judged from external actions. This is true of everything in the section.

Sankara in his commentary on BG 2.55, where the stitha-prajna section begins, says: 

"everywhere in spiritual science (adhyatma sastra), the very characteristic attributes of the successful Yogin are taught as the means (of attaining that stage), since they are to be attained by effort. The Lord now points out those characteristic attributes which, as attainable by effort, constitute the means as well."

That is, these are not attributes which can be used to find someone to imitate. Rather, these are direct instructions to the seeker for how they should try to be in the world.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625BDC7A849180F5399E9F684DCA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Balagopal Ramakrishnan]

Hari Om 

IMHO, this is where the importance of Sadhana Chathushtaya Sampatti comes. Even after jnAnam, it is the SCS that will be the dominant factor in the behaviour of a person as the hold of pRArabdha karma continues until he dies. The jnAni will have to continue to weaken the jivabhAva and strengthen the Brahma bhava. Otherwise even with jnAnam the person's behaviour may not be in line with that of the 'sthithapRajna'. In extreme cases one may choose 'ajagaravrutti' to be explicitly Brahman;  but I suspect if that's practical.

Regards 

Balagopal 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A7081704442C6BB9B4F684DFA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Akilesh Ayyar prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

IMO, it is general tendency to follow the Acharya or shreshta-s by the sAdhaka-s for their AtmOnnati in adhyAtma mArga.  They are the role models and followers of their role models would try to follow them and follow their teachings as well.  Whatever action these shreshta-s perform a common men would follow in an attempt to become like their role models.  People in general, as I said, including me, always require a guru who can teach the subtility of scriptures and show how it can be implemented in day-to-day life by their practical behavior. A guru cannot merely teach what scriptures prescribes and at the same time engaging himself in nishedha acts.  I remember one incident where rAmakrishna parama haMsa taken some weeks just to advise his disciple not to eat too many sweet dishes, when asked why such long time for this simple advice, he said I myself was fond of eating too many sweets so I first stopped it and then advised him.  One cannot giving lectures on  ‘stop smoking’ by smoking in public 😊    The teacher or guru or any other mentor should behave properly before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called Acharya who walk the talk. Therefore, a traditional teacher must follow the principles of shAstra (shAstra vidhi) to teach the common man and loukika-s like me would try to follow their footsteps. This is what was in my mind when I quoted yad yadAcharati shreshTaH, the geeta verse.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Safe to say, the RKM does not agree not adhere to the orthodox perspectives and interpretations of shastra pramana, expressed in these discussions. Effectively, our orthodox fussing on the pravritti marga details is "kitchen pot" or blind faith stuff for them. It does not mean they are Osho level either; there is all the seriousness to the outer structure and macro-objectives, but the shastra-based micro-distinctions in dharma are de-emphasized for a more eclectic universal approach. They don't see these "dilutions" as endangering dharma or our society. 

So karma can be linked to guna and deha (as evident in pratyaksha) but not further to varna or gender, etc. to such an extent that one has to rely explicitly upon shastra and therefore appear irrational or discriminatory in a nastika world. Even if there is a deference to the orthodox views, in that they don't show activism against it, they also don't want to tie themselves to it in these matters. Are more "open". Food is a practical functional logical matter, not a legal/dharma one (to them). The swami is quite explicit and clear on this, through both action and word. His followers are fine with this, or are able to compartmentalized the issue as a small matter or him as a jnani etc. That is why I am first more interested in how he introspects on the ethical side and whether he is truly free from hypocrisy when questioned from that angle; and that he accepts our objections and answers them more directly, clarifying his or RKM's stance.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1993424512.356330.1764281504350%40mail.yahoo.com.

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Pranam, True but many of us can talk eloquently, dress as orthodox but if don’t act accordingly than we are Paakhandis. Where to draw the line? Bhagawan Krishna in human avatara depicted supernatural abilities and not all but many knew that ( Bheeshma, Drona, etc) hence normal rules don’t apply. Similarly Veda Vyasa was born in unusual circumstances but able to speak at birth hence “ Not normal”. Regards, Ravi Chandrasekhara MD

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rpCb-e7fAnn5W_T9hzFFUrK2zMU%2BHukw0jPqdrOYdEzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Even if there is a deference to the orthodox views, in that they don't show activism against it, they also don't want to tie themselves to it in these matters. Are more "open". Food is a practical functional logical matter, not a legal/dharma one (to them). The swami is quite explicit and clear on this, through both action and word. His followers are fine with this, or are able to compartmentalized the issue as a small matter or him as a jnani etc.

This type of criticism I think we can have of Sannyasis today even in their updated ways of dealing with Kamini-Kanchana and karma. We don’t scrutinize too much unless something is awfully flagrant. They represent the ideal and we assume any apparent incongruence is not real.

Food however is harder to resolve, because it is not simply about the eater and his mind. There is the life that is snuffed. It involves another jiva and we are doing unto it what we don’t want done to us, and they don’t want done to them. It is such a delicate and sensitive matter that we really have to assume full-blown Jnani status for our non-veg Sannyasi in posh ambience, so that we can see him not defiled with himsa and hypocrisy. Clever logic that plant=animal may not suffice.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Putran ji.

Food however is harder to resolve, because it is not simply about the eater and his mind. There is the life that is snuffed. It involves another jiva and we are doing unto it what we don’t want done to us, and they don’t want done to them. It is such a delicate and sensitive matter that we really have to assume full-blown Jnani status for our non-veg Sannyasi in posh ambience, so that we can see him not defiled with himsa and hypocrisy. Clever logic that plant=animal may not suffice.

There is one more thing. ahimsA is at the heart of spiritual practices. If we see the very first yama, it is ahimsA. 

And YogasUtra-bhAshya clarifies that all subsequent yama-niyama such as Brahmacharya, satya, asteya etc have ahimsA as their root, and also, they all are intended to culminate in ahimsA. So, if there is a Satya resulting into himsA, it is not satya but satya-AbhAsa. 

With such exalted status for ahimsA, turning blind eye to that and that too for the purpose of eating, means all other subsequent yama-niyama are being ignored as well.

This ensures great difficulty in spiritual progress. It is incorrect to say that meat-eating is not a significant impediment in spiritual progress.

Reference:

Yoga Sutra VyAsa BhAshya 2.30

तत्र अहिंसा सर्वथा सर्वदा सर्वभूतानाम् अनभिद्रोह:। उत्तरे च यमनियमा: तन्मूला: तत्सिद्धिपरतया एव तत्प्रतिपादनाय प्रतिपाद्यन्ते।

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 1:32 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Putran ji.

Food however is harder to resolve, because it is not simply about the eater and his mind. There is the life that is snuffed. It involves another jiva and we are doing unto it what we don’t want done to us, and they don’t want done to them. It is such a delicate and sensitive matter that we really have to assume full-blown Jnani status for our non-veg Sannyasi in posh ambience, so that we can see him not defiled with himsa and hypocrisy. Clever logic that plant=animal may not suffice.

There is one more thing. ahimsA is at the heart of spiritual practices. If we see the very first yama, it is ahimsA. 

A very pertinent observation, Sudhanshu ji, which is endorsed strongly in the  Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Madhusudan Saraswati for the Bh.Gita 12th ch.

कथं पुनर्विषयेन्द्रियसंयोगे सति विजातीयप्रत्ययतिरस्कारोऽत आह -- संनियम्येति। संनियम्य स्वविषयेभ्य उपसंहृत्येन्द्रियग्रामं करणसमुदायम्। एतेन शमदमादिसंपत्तिरुक्ता। विषयभोगवासनायां सत्यां कुत इन्द्रियाणां ततो निवृत्तिस्तत्राह -- सर्वत्रेति। सर्वत्र विषये समा तुल्या हर्षविषादाभ्यां रागद्वेषाभ्यां च रहिता मतिर्येषाम्। सम्यग्ज्ञानेन तत्कारणस्याज्ञानस्यापनीतत्वाद्विषयेषु दोषदर्शनाभ्यासेन स्पृहाया निरसनाच्च ते सर्वत्र समबुद्धयः। एतेन वशीकारसंज्ञावैराग्यमुक्तं। अतएव सर्वत्रात्मदृष्ट्या हिंसाकारणद्वेषरहितत्वात्सर्वभूतहिते रताःअभयं सर्वभूतेभ्यो मत्तः स्वाहा इति मन्त्रेण दत्तसर्वभूताभयदक्षिणाः। कृतसंन्यासा इति यावत्।अभयं सर्वभूतेभ्यो दत्त्वा संन्यासमाचरेत् इति स्मृते:। एवंविधाः सर्वसाधनसंपन्नाः सन्तः स्वयं ब्रह्मभूता निर्विचिकित्सेन साक्षात्कारेण सर्वसाधनफलभूतेन मामक्षरं ब्रह्मैव ते प्राप्नुवन्ति। पूर्वमपि मद्रूपा एव सन्तोऽविद्यानिवृत्त्या मद्रूपा एव तिष्ठन्तीत्यर्थः।ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येतिब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति इत्यादि श्रुतिभ्य इहापि चज्ञानी त्वात्मैव मे मतम् इत्युक्तम्।

The gist of the above is: A sannyasi, even while taking the vow of renunciation, declares openly: I assure that nothing in creation will have any fear from me. (as per smriti). This utterance we see even today when sannyasa is embraced as per the shāstra vidhi. 

regards

subbu

 

And YogasUtra-bhAshya clarifies that all subsequent yama-niyama such as Brahmacharya, satya, asteya etc have ahimsA as their root, and also, they all are intended to culminate in ahimsA. So, if there is a Satya resulting into himsA, it is not satya but satya-AbhAsa. 

With such exalted status for ahimsA, turning blind eye to that and that too for the purpose of eating, means all other subsequent yama-niyama are being ignored as well.

This ensures great difficulty in spiritual progress. It is incorrect to say that meat-eating is not a significant impediment in spiritual progress.

Reference:

Yoga Sutra VyAsa BhAshya 2.30

तत्र अहिंसा सर्वथा सर्वदा सर्वभूतानाम् अनभिद्रोह:। उत्तरे च यमनियमा: तन्मूला: तत्सिद्धिपरतया एव तत्प्रतिपादनाय प्रतिपाद्यन्ते।

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA5d3KLWEwxZa7zXvrsE0soMvALKfXLQs_R4NFDT3j0cw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Subbu-ji,

The gist of the above is: A sannyasi, even while taking the vow of renunciation, declares openly: I assure that nothing in creation will have any fear from me. (as per smriti). This utterance we see even today when sannyasa is embraced as per the shāstra vidhi. 

Yes, and the observance of this vow is so strict that sannyasis do not even travel during chaturmasya because of the possibility that they may inadvertantly step on insects and small creatures that may come to be in their paths during the the rainy season.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan