Semanti said... Swamiji need not influence Himself because He Himself is the Divine Nectar & Energy for all. Dear blog writer, I pray to Swamiji to forgive & Bless you always! March 30, 2013 at 4:20 AM.
Reply from ybrao a donkey
vivEkAnanda as divine nectar The adjective `divine` is a vague term. The phrase `divine nectar` is intangible. Fans of celebrities be it vivEkAnanda or SalmAn khAn or Sharukh khAn or somebody else love their idols blindly and ignore even serious shortcomings. Well, fans are entitled to their own beliefs.
svAmIji forgiving and blessing this blog-writer:
We atheists and Marxists do not require blessings and forgiveness(es). vivEkAnanda needs blessings and forgiveness(es). The countless chicken, shad fish, American and Indian turtles, beef-giving buffaloes and cattle finished by svAmiji have to forgive him. Of course, souls do not exist as per current scientific thinking. Their physical structures have all got amalgamated into this nature.
svAmIji wrote that Mother would decide his future. But svAmIji decided the future(s) of cattle, chicken, fish and turtles. He did not allow Mother kALi to decide the future of the poor creatures.
Ms. Semanti commented as under:
Blogger Semanti said... Dear writer, how intelligent you are to compare the Great Master Swami Vivekananda with rubbish film stars!!! Your intelligence has been proved by addressing a girl (Semanti) as 'Mr. Semanti'. Anyway, I did not know that you, the Marxists use to think fishes & other animals as poor creatures, think to save their lives, but never think that man is the best creature within this universe & should be saved first. It may be possible for you people to love animals more than man, where our motto is to serve mankind (following our Master Swami Vivekananda's Ideals) so we have no time to waste by talking or arguing with you. Only one thing, I loved Marxism in my early life, & then somehow I heard that Marxists use to love & serve human beings the most. Now you have proven your sympathy (if any) is only for animals, not for men!!! My sympathy for Marxism is dying gradually after watching this blog. I admired this concept only because I love men, not animals. Now I have to leave this idealism to follow the Holy Footprints of my Master Swami Vivekananda! April 5, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Error of my comparing SwAmI vivEkAnanda with film stars.
: Do you wish that I should compare SwAmi vivEkAnanda with cheats and imposters? I shall never do it. I have compared Swamiji with film stars because, he is an important celebrity ruling Indian minds. Film stars and cricketers also rule Indian minds. Hence, this comparison.
Error of calling you Mr. semAnTi
I sincerely apologise to you for this inadvertant error. At the same time, please allow me a little concession of making a sincere comment with no intent to hurt you. For a jignAsu (sanskrit for explorer in quest of self-realisation), it helps to lose a consciousness of sex of the body. Sex is only a reproductive mechanism of humans, and beyond that it conveys nothing. Fortunately, modern English language is evolving, to eliminate suffixes which indicate the sex of persons and occupations, unless it is absolutely essential and neutral nouns and adjectives have become preferable. For example, pilot of an aircraft, it is immaterial whether the steerer of the craft is male or female. I hope English will shortly evolve an honorific prefix which does not indicate sex in the place of current Mr. and Ms.
About saving animals vs. saving humans
Saving animals and Saving humans are not mutually exclusive. A human-savior need not be a reckless-animal-devourer. Both traits can co-exist. This requirement of coexistence of both compassions apply even to Jesus Christ. If we call Jesus, a great compassionate person, with a lamb in his arms, we expect that he would save the lamb rather than cut it and serve the meat in the next day`s last-supper or roast it in some barbecue. Even a born non-vegetarian can be compassionate to animals by minimising meat consumption (he-she may not be able to stop it altogether). A family which consumes 30 kg. of meat per month, if it can reduce its consumption to 10 kg. per month voluntarily , they will be doing great service not only to animals, but also to humanity. When we say that Buddha as a personification of compassion, then we expect that he would not eat pork and die of poisoning. Praying for the peace of the soul of the culled-animal-bird makes no sense as long as the animal`s/bird`s existence is challenged by devourer. When we say that Shri rAma is an Ocean of Compassion, we expect from him that he will not kill deer recklessly or sacrifice them to please Gods for house-warming ceremonies.
About Communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc.
All these concepts are born from the compassion and empathy which Marx, Engels and their predecessor philosophers had towards the poor and the down-trodden. They were moved with kindness because the working class laborers were forced to live a life of precarious existence of starvation and were denied their basic rights of living with dignity and self-respect. Right to dignity and equality, every human being is entitled to. Their immediate-priorities were different, and hence they could not deal with the element of compassion towards animals. We may probably say: Compassion-towards-animals was/is not a taboo to them.
Religious preachers of almost-all-religions (swAmi vivEkAnanda was also a religious preacher) day-in-and-day out of speak of ethics and duty, try to interpret what is moral and what is immoral and impose on everybody. karuNa (compassion) is one such common preaching-item.
Monks and religious preachers cannot show behavioral patterns which are similar to those of common-folks. They are supposed to be exceptionally-exemplary. For this reason only, we are supposed to fall down at their feet and revere them. If they also like us go on indulging in worldly pleasures, while preaching self-control and self-restraint, and if we continue to kneel before them, probably then we shall be losing our sanity. I had a science teacher in my seventh standard days (1960) at Bapatla Municipal High School who used to teach (preach?) that we should not eat sweets or savories sold on street carts because they would be unhygienic. Many times I used to see him during evenings buying eatables on carts and walking upto Municipal Library/park till the stuff was finished. He was a great teacher of noble qualities. I do not intend to belittle or vilipend him when I quote this anecdote of my childhood. The only limitation is, we cannot regard him as a role-model, as far as learning hygiene is concerned.
I get an impression that you have not studied the Complete Works of sWamI vivEkananda thoroughly, before taking him as a master. Once we start accepting somebody as our master, we rarely dare to go back, even if adequate evidence is available that h our object of reverence does not deserve it. Vivekananda declared that he disliked hypocrisy. His Complete Works reveal that he himself practised hypocrisy. This is not only with regard to meat or liquor, but also in respect of many other things. From my blog, you can see many such instances with proof from his Complete Works. For example, vivEkAnanda, claimed himself to be a paramahamsa (Great Swan). From this instance, a question should automatically arise, who suffixed the title `paramahamsa` to his guru rAmakrishNa paramahamsa? Should we say, since vivEkAnanda wanted to call himself paramahamsa (discontinued later), he started calling his guru also paramahamsa?
All religions have self-proclaimed prophets and pretenders .
About serving humanity, by religious bodies and monasteries
The claim of service to humanity is just a mask for the inability of religious-preachers to work like common-people and earn an honest-livelihood. Collecting donations from gullible-impressionable persons and vulgarly rich guilty-complex suffering individuals who want to wash their sins by donating, is not real service. Collecting Government grants is not real service. Most charity is only intermediation. Use a part of collections for personal luxuries, keep something for future, and spend a meagre part on keeping orphanages-schools as `exhibits-of-proof-of-work`, for collecting more funds. This is a vicious circle.
Marxism does not advocate this type of fake-service and intermediation. It clearly recognises that poor-and-downtrodden have rights and deserve their due share, which is knocked away by the billionaires. It aims to promote equality and dignity of individuals within the framework of needs of society. No need of charity or pity, which are hypocrisies. Our vivEkAnanda, as he claimed, hated hypocrisies. Then he should have hated charities and monasteries. Instead, he preferred to build a mansion-temple-monastery and started doling out small benefits to orphans. Hence, the service to humans, made by your master vivEkananda was just part-mithya (illusion) and part-truth.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al, had their own shortcomings. Communism, Marxism and Socialism too have their own shortcomings. I am not covering them here because I go too far away from the main subject of this blog.
Imperative: to recognise that saints are not made by tours of lecturing-to-aristocratic-drunken-women, while promoting religious-discord or by running orphanages to attract donations from innocent-or-guilty persons and Govt.
About waste of time talking/arguing with me
I am sad that you have considered it a waste of time. But for me, it is not a waste of my time. It gave me an opportunity to re-examine the tenability and veracity of things I am writing.