Vegetarianism & Alcoholism

[goundamani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every word of this was said by ambedhkar.He says that earlier all Hindus ate beef and meat.Then brahmins turned vegetarians first and stopped eating all meat.They made cow a holy animal and this made non-brahmin hindus to stop eating beef.People who continued to eat beef became chandalas and untouchables because they commited the worst sacrileage in Hinduism,eating beef.[/FONT]

Ambedhkar classifies hindus as 3 types

People who eat no meat(Brahmins)
People who eat meat but not beef (Ksathriyas and vaisyas)
People who eat beef and meat (chandalas)

How did this difference in food habits come into existence?
Why did brahmins stop eating meat and beef?
Why did they make cow as a holy animal?
Why did non-brahmins stopped eating beef but not meat?
Why did untouchables did not stop eating beef?

Excerpts from the article of ambedhkar
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]TO the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no, never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says: “They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen”. The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe. [/FONT]

Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the Taittiriya Bramhana, not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid down, but we are even told what kind and description of oxen and cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The Taittiriya Bramhana notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most important element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old humpless, dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three year-old.….

…The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that the guest came to be called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of the cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the Ashvateyana Grahya Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when the guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette….

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Coming to Manu there is no doubt that he too did. not prohibit the slaughter of the cow. On the other hand he made the eating of cow's flesh on certain occasions obligatory. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WHAT MADE THE BRAHMINS BECOME VEGETARIANS?
THE non-Brahmins have evidently undergone a revolution. From being beef-eaters to have become non-beef-eaters was indeed a revolution. But if the non-Brahmins underwent one revolution, the Brahmins had undergone two. They gave up beef-eating which was one revolution. To have given up meat-eating altogether and become vegetarians was another revolution. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That this was a revolution is beyond question. For as has been shown in the previous chapters there was a time when the Brahmins were the greatest beef-eaters. Although the non-Brahmins did eat beef they could not have had it every day. The cow was a costly animal and the non-Brahmins could ill afford to slaughter it just for food. He only did it on special occasion when his religious duty or personal interest to propitiate a deity compelled him to do. But the case with the Brahmin was different. He was a priest. In a period overridden by ritualism there was hardly a day on which there was no cow sacrifice to which the Brahmin was not invited by some non-Brahmin. For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day. The Brahmins were therefore the greatest beef-eaters. The Yajna of the Brahmins was nothing but the killing of innocent animals carried on in the name of religion with pomp and ceremony with an attempt to enshroud it in mystery with a view to conceal their appetite for beef. Some idea of this mystery pomp and ceremony can be had from the directions contained in the Atreya Brahamana touching the killing of animals in a Yajna. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The actual killing of the animal is preceded by certain initiatory Rites accompanied by incantations too long and too many to be detailed here. It is enough to give an idea of the main features of the Sacrifice. The sacrifice commences with the erection of the Sacrificial post called the Yupa to which the animal is tied before it is slaughtered. After setting out why the Yupa is necessary the Atreya Brahamana proceeds to state what it stands for. It says: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“This Yupa is a weapon. Its point must have eight edges. For a weapon (or iron club) has eight edges. Whenever he strikes with it an enemy or adversary, he kills him. (This weapon serves) to put down him (every one) who is to be put down by him (the sacrificer). The Yupa is a weapon which stands erected (being ready) to slay an enemy. Thence an enemy (of the sacrificer) who might be present (at the sacrifice) comes of all ill after having seen the Yupa of such or such one.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The selection of the wood to be used for the Yupa is made to vary with the purposes which the sacrificer wishes to achieve by the sacrifice. The Atreya Brahamana says : [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“He who desires heaven, ought to make his Yupa of Khadira wood. For the gods conquered the celestial world by means of a Yupa, made of Khadira wood. In the same way the sacrificer conquers the celestial world by means of a Yupa, made of Khadira wood. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“He who desires food and wishes to grow fat ought to make his Yupa of Bilva wood. For the Bilva tree bears fruits every year; it is the symbol of fertility; for it increases (every year) in size from the roots up to the branches, therefore it is a symbol of fatness. He who having such a knowledge makes his Yupa of Bilva wood, makes fat his children and cattle. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“As regards the Yupa made of Bilva wood (it is further to be remarked), that they call light Bilva. He who has such a knowledge becomes a light' among his own people, the most distinguished among his own people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“He who desires beauty and sacred knowledge ought to make his Yupa of Palasa wood. For the Palasa is among the trees of beauty and sacred knowledge. He who having such a knowledge makes his Yupa of Palasa wood, becomes beautiful and acquires sacred knowledge. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“As regards the Yupa made of Palasa wood (there is further to be remarked), that the Palasa is the womb of all trees. Thence they speak on account of the palasam (foliage) of this or that tree (i.e. they call the foliage of every tree palasam). He who has such a knowledge obtains (the gratification of) any desire, he might have regarding all trees (i.e., he obtains from all trees any thing he might wish for).” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]…. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given these facts, no further evidence seems to be necessary to support the statement that the Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why then did the Brahmins change front? Let us deal with their change of front in two stages. First, why did they give up beef-eating? [/FONT]

-------

For answers to all the above said questions read the full article by ambedhkar

 

[NARAS]

sir - pls. also read the following -

'He who augments his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures live in misery in whatever species he may take his birth' MAHABHARATA 115.47

'Those high souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental & physical strength & memory should abstain from acts of injury' MAHABHARATA 18.115.8

'The very name of cow is 'aghnya' (not to be killed) indicating that they should never be slaughtered. who then could slay them ? surely one who kills a cow or bull commits a serious crime' MAHABHARAT SHANTHIPARV 262.47


'HIM I CALL A BRAHMANA WHO LAYS ASIDE THE ROD, WHO NEITHER KILLS NOR CAUSES THE DEATH OF CREATURES. MOVING OR NON MOVING (ANIMALS OR PLANTS) - BUDDHA IN DHAMMAPADA, 26.409

'no buddhist country in the world is predominantly vegetarian. tibetian and japanese monks eat meat, even red meat (including dalai lama). SOMA plant is a juice - eminent american DR. DAVID FRAWLEY

'The rig veda & sama veda call cow 'aghnya' & 'aditi' i.e. not to be murdered. (Rig 1-64-27, 5-83-8, 7-68-9, 1-164-40, 8-69-2, 9-1-9, 9-93-3, 10-6-11, 10-87-16) They extol the cow as unkillable, unmrderable, whose milk purifies the mind & keep it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for a person who kills a cow. The Atharvana veda recommends beheading for such a crime (8-3-16). Rig veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15)

'the original vedic system is quite different from contempoary hinduism. both the old and the new, however, converge harmoniously in regard to vegeteranism. long before st.francis was declared patron saint of animals, the sages of ancient india had already recognised spirituality in all living species. vedic texts even describe incarnation of god in animal forms. vedas even acknowledge ability of ordinary animals to achieve exalted states of spirituality. here then, is a religious tradition that emphasis not only vegeteranism, but also the spiritual equality of all living beings' BY PAUL TURNER, GLOBAL DIRECTOR OF FOOD FOR LIFE, AND MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL VEGETARIAN UNION COUNCIL.

 

[NARAS]

sir- by oversight, i wrongly updated an earlier posting incomplete. pls. consider the following -
'one who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of horse, or of another animal and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King! if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head'
RIG VEDA SAMHITA 10.87.16

PROTECT BOTH OUR SPECIES, TWO LEGGED & FOUR LEGGED. BOTH FOOD & WATER FOR THEIR NEEDS SUPPLY . MAY THEY WITH US INCREASE N STATURE AND STRENGTH. SAVE US FROM HURT ALL OUR DAYS. O POWERS!

RIG VEDA SAMHITA 10.37.11

O VEGETABLE, BE SUCCULENT, WHOLESOME, STRENGTHENING AND THUS BODY BE FULLY GROWN (RIG VEDA)

'The purchaser of flesh commits himsa (violence) by his wealth. he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste. the killer does himsa by actually tying & killing the animal. thus there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases , sells or cooks flesh & eats it .- all of these are to be considered meat eaters '
(MAHABHARATHA ANU.115.40)

'MY OPINION IS WELL KNOWN. i do not regard flesh food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. i hold flesh food to be unsuited to our species.' MAHATMA GANDHI.

'When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he must abstain from eating it ' THIRUKKURAL VERSE 257

'the burning of clarified butter & odoriferous & nutritious substances in the fire in order to purify the are is called ASHWAMEDHA (SHANTHAPATHA BRAHMANA 13:1, 6;3, ) (anyone who sacrifices his wealth & pride for others, it is known as ashwamedha. ashwa i.e. horse represents royalty, luxury, majesty, splendour etc.,)

'aahavaniiye maamsapratishedha (katyayana sutra)' meaning 'THAT WHICH IS TO BE USED IN A YAGNA (AAHAVANIIYA) MUST BE VEGETARIAN.

'Maa himsyaat sarvabhuutani' (rig veda) NO CREATURE OR ANIMAL SHOULD BE KILLED.

'Yah paurusheyena kravishaa samankte yo ashvyena pashunaa yaatudhaanah,
Yo aghyaayaa bharati kshiiramagne teshaam shirshaani harasaapi vrshcha
RIG VEDA 10.87.16 - THE EVIL PERSON WHO KILLS OR EATS THE MEAT OF HORSE OR COW SHOULD BE TERMINATED.

'MAAMSAPAAKAPRATISHEDHASHCHA TADVAT'; (Miimaamsa sutra 10.3.65)
KILLING & MEAT EATING IS TOTALLY PROHIBITED.

'Suraam matsyaan madhu maamsamaasavam krsaraudanam ,
Dhuurttaih pravartitam hyetannaitad vedeshu kalpitam (MAHABHARATA SHANTHIPARVAN 265.9) meaning IT IS ONLY THE EVIL MINDED HYPOCRITES WHO STARTED TELLING THAT VEDIC YAGNAS INVOLVE INTOXICANTS & MEAT EATING. IT IS NOT IN THE VEDAS.

'Akhaadannanumodamshcha bhaavadoshena maanavah ,
Yo'numodati hanyantam so'pi doshena lipyate. (MB, AnushaasanaParvan 115.39) meaning THE ONE WHO HIMSELF DOES NOT EAT MEAT BUT EVEN IF HE GIVES CONSENT TO EAT MEAT OR TO KILL AN ANIMAL, HE BECOMES EQUALLY SINFUL AS THEM.

'THE MEAT EATER WHO KILLS AN ANIMAL INTHE NAME OF VEDIC YAGNA OR
TELLS THAT IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF YAGNA IS A SINNER AND HE WILL BE A PERSON WHO WILL DWELL IN HELL' (MAHABHARATHAM, AP 115.43)

'IT IS DHARMA THAT IN THE SHRAADHHA FEAST, HE SHOULD NEVER OFFER MEAT OR SHOULD EAT MEAT. ONLY VEGETARIAN FOOD SHOULD BE OFFERED A MEAT IS OBTAINED BY KILLING' (BHAAGAVATHAM 7.15.7)

IN MANUSMRITHI,MANU ASSERTS THAT ONE SHOULD NEVER DRINK & SHOULD NEVER SMELL ANY INTOXICANT LIKE WINE (MS 11.146-149). MANU ALSO SAYS SELLING, BUYING, COOKING & EATING MEAT IS AS SINFUL AS KILLING THE ANIMAL ITSELF (MS 5.15)

'BRAHMINS, KSHATRIYAS & VAISHYAS SHOULD NEVER DRINK WINE, LIQUOR OR INTOXICANTS OF ANY KIND, BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL FOODS OF DEMONS. SO THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSUMED' (manu smrithi 11.94 &11.95)

in 5.48 & 5.51, manu says those who kill, eat meat never attain celestial abode. in 5.13 manu explicity forbids meat from a slaughterhouse. in 5.38 he says 'as many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a lawful reason suffer a violent death in future births' .

Bhaagavatha purana, 11th skandha , 5th adhyaaya, 14th sloka says 'those who are ignorant of real dharma kill animals will be punished by these very animals in their next birth' (11.5.14)

in 5.33 manu also says meat eaters will be eaten after their death by animals. in bhagavatha puranam, sage naradha says 'those who sacrificed animals in rituals will be punished by those very animals in next birth' (4.25.7 &4.25.8)

so, animal sacrifice did take place. but bramins did not take part in it in any way at all. moreover, it is because of wrong inference, interpretation & interpolation that it is being said that bramins are meat eaters & that bramins indulged in animal sacrifice. for bramins vegeteranism is a compulsory trait. for other varnas, it is voluntary.
in the theravad buddhist, text, it has been said that BUDDHA CONSUMED MEAT!!!
soma is a plant juice which has medicinal value. it is not an alcoholic drink.

Hinduism is only religion which believes in rebirth. so it is believed each and every hindu will be born in n each & every varna in each & every birth. so the relatively superior status bramins enjoyed is only for a limited period, during which they were bramins. in any case, no country in the world follows varnasharama now. this practice originated when bramins were in a majority in some places. it is now part of history.

 

[NARAS]

sir= pls. consider the following. i had missed by oversight to update these detail :

1. thosewho harm animals (paashun druhyanthi) are impious (asantah) and will be slain in their next lives by the very animals which they killed (pretya khaadanti te cha taan). (BHAAGAVATHA PURANA 11.5.14)
this is also mentioned in Manu dharma shastra 5.33

2. MANU SMIRITHI 5.38 SAYS 'as many hairs as the slain beast has , so often indeed will he who killed it without a lawful reason suffer a violent death in future births'

3. MANU SMRITHI 5.51 : 'he who permits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells it, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, all must be considered slayers of the animal'

4. manu smrithi 5.13 explicitly forbids meat from a slaughter house.

5. Bhaagavatha purana 4.25.7-8 'sage narada says to king praachiinabarhi that the large no. of animals the king had sacrificed were preparing to seek vengenance on him in his next life. '

6. 'in this age of kali, 5 acts are forbidden -'the offering of a horse insacrifice, a cow in sacrifice, acceptance of order of sanyasa, offering of oblations of flesh to forefathers, and a man's begetting children in his brother's wife '
BRAHMA VAIVARTHA PURAANA KRISHNA JANMA KHANDA 185.180)

7. 'him i call a brahmana who lays aside the rod , who neither kills nor causes the death of creatures (moving or non moving- animals or plants)' BUDDHA IN DHARMAPADA 26.409

8. the rig veda and sama veda call cow 'aghnya' & 'adithi' .e. not to be killed murdered. (Rig 1-64-27, 5-83-8, 7-68-9, 1-164-40, 8-69-2, 9-1-9, 9-93-3, 10-6-11, 10-87-16). they extol the cow as unkillable, unmurderable whose milk purifies the mind & keeps it free from sin. verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. the atharva veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime. the rig veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).

9. 'you should not eat any mammal that has umblical cord , as BRAHMA came out of umblical region of vishnu / mahalakshmi . VISHNU PURANAM.

10. 'One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse, or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, o king, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head ' RIG VEDA SAMHITA 10.87.16

11. Protect both our species, 2 legged & 4 legged. both food and water for their needs supply. may they with us increase in stature and strength - RIG VEDA SAMHITA 10.37.11

12. those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are serious about spiritual practices ATHERVA VEDA SAMHITHA 19.48.5

13. he who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth MAHABHARATHA ANU.115.47

14. AHIMSA IS NOT CAUSING ANY PAIN TO ANY LIVING BEING AT ANY TIME THROUGH THE ACTION'S OF ONE'S MIND, SPEECH & BODY.

15. the foods that can be offered to god are without meat, egg, fish, intoxicants, excitants, alcohol etc., BHAGAVAD GITA.

16. slaying of cow is an offence , the punishment of which is losing one's whole wealth MANU SMRITHI CH.11, VERSES 116 & 117

17. THAT WHICH MUST BE USED IN A YAGNA MUST BE VEGETARIAN - KATYAYANA SUTRA

18. No creature / animal should be killed = RIG VEDA. b. KILLING & EATING MEAT IS TOTALLY PROHIBITED - MIIMAAMSA SUTRA.

19. it is only the evil minded hypoctires who started telling that vedic yagnas involve intoxicants &meat eating. it is not in vedas. MAHABHARATHA, SHANTHI PARVAN 265.9 &
(b) THE ONE WHO GIVES CONSENT FOR KILLING ANIMALS, BECOMES EQUALLY SINFUL, EVEN IF HE DOES NOT EAT THE MEAT. (MAHABHARATHA ANUSHAASAPARVAN115.39) & (c) the person who kills an animal in a yagna or tells that an animal should be killed in a yagna will dwell in hell MAHABHARATHA ANUSHAASAPARVAN 115.43)

20.BHAGAVATHAM 7.15.7 'IN SHRAADHA FEAST ONLY VEGETARIAN FOOD SHOULD BE USED'

21. MANU SMRITHI 11.146-149 'ONE SHOULD NEVER DRINK & SHOULD NEVER SMELL ANY INTOXICANT LIKE WINE' & 'SELLING, BUYING, COOKING MEAT IS AS SINFUL AS SLAYING THE ANIMAL' (MS 5.15)

22. MANUSMRITI 11.94 11.95'Brahmins, kshatriyas & vaishyas must never consume meat,intoxicants or liquor, because these are all meant for demons only'

23. MANUSMIRITHI 5.48 & 5.51 'KILLER OF ANIMALS NEVER ENTER CELESTIAL ABODE. ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN KILLING ANIMALS IN ANYWAY ARE SINFUL'

24. you are saying not to quote about other religions. but you are yourselves repeatedly mentioning about jainism & buddhism!

 

[NARAS]

SIR - Mr.SILVER FOX ALIAS RANGANATHA! KRS IS bashing brahmnism which i am not. it is his posts which should be banned, not mine. what i entered are not my views but proofs and evidences from scriptures which nail the lies of your 'scholarly' members that bramins ate meat. pls. ask your 'scholarly' members to read 'THE WORLD OF FATWAS' By Dr. arun shourie , in which quotations from quran which say prophet mohammed mentioning that 'women are commodities for men to enjoy' are published. WILL YOUR 'SCHOLARLY' MEMBERS HAVE THE COURAGE TO WRITE ABOUT QURAN OR BIBLE?

the vedas have been there for centures in this country, even before they were written as texts. nobody knows when vedas originated. they are that old.

if bramins are meat eaters, then how did untouchability originate? even mahatma gandhi , more educated than your 'scholarly' members has said that bramins were always pure vegetarians, and it was because of this that they considered non bramins who consume meat as untouchable. (EDHU HINDU DHARMAM BY MAHATMA GANDHI).

even buddhists do not follow buddhism, whereas your 'scholarly' members are 'discovering' that brahminism was inspired by buddhism! all religions which originated in india -brahmnism, non brahminism, buddhism, sikhism & jainism - all are vegetarian religions. the only difference is that whereas brahminism is a pure vegetarian religion, other indian religions allow eating meat of animals which die a natural death.

let me say one thing- the present day bramins may be drunkards, meat eaters, smokers and everything. but bramin forefathers & ancestors were pure vegetarians, who will not touch even onions & garlic. to brand such holy & noble persons as meat eaters only shows the lowly levels to which this forum has descended. persons like me ,naturally have no place in this thread. the sooner this thread is closed, the better for all, otherwise it will lead to lot of bitterness & heartburn amongst many bramins for whom vegetarinism is not just a choice, but a religion by itself.

 

[NARAS]

SIR- The problem with me is that apart from vegeteranism, i am a total zero in almost all other areas. that is why i am posting about vegeteranism only. it is quite possible Mr. KRS may be a 'scholar' in many other areas. but my contention is that the views of Mr. KRS in this thread are not 'scholarly' enough. for e.g. imagine a judge awarding a punishment of 3 months imprisonment to a person for committing a crime. if someone were to say 'the judge has sanctioned crime. he has said that you can commit a crime provided you are in jail for 3 months!' will it be a correct inference? my understanding of orthodox hindu scriptures is that they discourage meat eating in all possible ways since centuries. it is because of wrong interpretation that some persons think vedic religion sanctions meat eating & animal sacrifice.

ASHWAMEDHA YAGNA: It is said in those days the horse was an important weapon for the kings because there cannot be any warfare without horses. so no king would be willing to sacrifice horse. each and every year a yagna called ashwamedha yagna would be conducted in honour of horses. after these horses die a natural death, the meat would be extracted and distributed to all non bramins.thus vedic religion did not advocate slaughter of living animals.

FAILURE OF BUDDHA: IMHO, the main reason & probably the only reason buddhism failed in india, was perhaps because the policies advocated by buddha were something which the buddha himself had not followed for many years in his life (vegeteranism, celibacy etc.,), whereas most of hindu sages & seers over the years like adhi sankarar, paramacharya etc., right from the time they appeared in their mother's womb till their last breath totally followed the policies which they themselves had advocated (again e.g. vegeteranism, celibacy etc.,) so the bramin sages & seers could command lot of credibility which the buddha could not. thus, buddhism looked very ordinary when compared to brahminism because of this reason.

Jainism failed in india because it advocated total public nudity & total vegeteranism which was totally impracticable. particularly total nudism was impossible even for males!

there is even a school of thought, though not widely famous, that buddha and mahaveera were descendants of bramins, who converted to kashatriyas. there is another view point, that persons who converted to braminism from other varnas were the ones who later became buddhists, after they were expelled from brahminism for indulging in meat eating & animal sacrifice.



asking a bramin not to speak about vegeteranism, is asking an ENT Doctor not to speak about ear, nose & throat!

 

[silverfox]

Dear KRS:
As usual, Mr. NARAS is dragging us all into unnecessary arguments. Please ignore and continue to enlighten us with the rest of the discourses on our Vedas. It seems you are being sidetracked by his antics in that you have to keep on explaining yourself. Enough is enough! Let us move on!


Quotes from NARAS<<<Sir - You may certainly be a scholar in many other matters, but in this thread IMHO, atleast so far your scholarly genius has not come out, though the adminstrator of this forum has already proclaimed you as a scholar, ironically for showing bramins in extremely poor light!
by your logic, even drinking, smoking, gambling, horse racing,betting, womanising can be justified.>>>>>

 

[Chintana]

Vegetarianism and Alcoholism

As vegetarianism and alcoholism seem to be popular topics with some of our members all posts on these topics unrelated to the core topic of any thread shall find a place here.

Hope you continue to enjoy your debates/discussions.

 

[goundamani]

-edited by author-

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Chintana Ji,

My thoughts on this:

1. This diet is being recognized as the healthiest of all diets nowadays (Vegan or not) provided the Protein requirements are met by combining a grain with a lentil.

2. This diet is supposed to increase one's 'Sattvic' qualities which are conducive for one to pursue a path of 'Jnana Yoga', in Hinduism.

3. However, this diet has also increased the 'Diabeteic' conditions of folks in India. This has happened because of the way rice is now polished off at the mills, making it almost behave as sugar in one's body.

4. This diet is not by itself anything 'pure' or 'superior' in terms of a society, because this diet, in post Vedic periods were definitely not recommended for Kshatrias, in Hinduism.

5. This diet definitely impedes one's performance in the fields of athletics and other physical sports.

6. Man is designed to be Omnivorous and so, this was not the 'natural' diet in the history of the humans.

7. Men, who are born in the regions of the world where just being Vegetarian is impossible (Cold regions, such as Lapland, etc.), have no options to adopt to this diet.

8. Being a 'Vegetarian' in the post Vedic culture is a necessary condition to being called a 'Brahmin'. But it is not a sufficient condition. Being born to a 'Brahmin' father is not either. We are discussing this in our thread "Who are we?", elsewhere in this Forum.

9. Ahimsa is integral to our religion and it has developed over centuries. But in essence all food we eat are thought of as the 'sacrificial offerings' to the Devas. ALL OUR ACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SCARIFICES.

Alcoholism to me, as it pertains to our scriptures and as it is practiced by our society is bad. In the wine producing regions of the world, wine is considred as a part of diet and is not abused. I guess that is the difference. In countries where an alcoholic drink is not considered as a part of the diet, it is always abused. England and India are prime examples.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[NARAS]

Dear Sri Chintana Ji,

My thoughts on this:

1. This diet is being recognized as the healthiest of all diets nowadays (Vegan or not) provided the Protein requirements are met by combining a grain with a lentil.

2. This diet is supposed to increase one's 'Sattvic' qualities which are conducive for one to pursue a path of 'Jnana Yoga', in Hinduism.

3. However, this diet has also increased the 'Diabeteic' conditions of folks in India. This has happened because of the way rice is now polished off at the mills, making it almost behave as sugar in one's body.

4. This diet is not by itself anything 'pure' or 'superior' in terms of a society, because this diet, in post Vedic periods were definitely not recommended for Kshatrias, in Hinduism.

5. This diet definitely impedes one's performance in the fields of athletics and other physical sports.

6. Man is designed to be Omnivorous and so, this was not the 'natural' diet in the history of the humans.

7. Men, who are born in the regions of the world where just being Vegetarian is impossible (Cold regions, such as Lapland, etc.), have no options to adopt to this diet.

8. Being a 'Vegetarian' in the post Vedic culture is a necessary condition to being called a 'Brahmin'. But it is not a sufficient condition. Being born to a 'Brahmin' father is not either. We are discussing this in our thread "Who are we?", elsewhere in this Forum.

9. Ahimsa is integral to our religion and it has developed over centuries. But in essence all food we eat are thought of as the 'sacrificial offerings' to the Devas. ALL OUR ACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SCARIFICES.

Alcoholism to me, as it pertains to our scriptures and as it is practiced by our society is bad. In the wine producing regions of the world, wine is considred as a part of diet and is not abused. I guess that is the difference. In countries where an alcoholic drink is not considered as a part of the diet, it is always abused. England and India are prime examples.

Pranams,
KRS

sir - thanks for starting a new thread on meating and eating! but inauspiciously the thread has started with a posting potraying vedic bramins in an offensive manner.

1. kshatriyas were not banned from eating meat. they were only banned from killing animals.
2.sports is not integral or central to a country.it is only an extra curricular activity. many countries which have done poorly in sports like singapore,hongkong are prosperous.
3.Man himself came from a animal i.e. monkey. then how can man be designed to eat animals?
4. we are talking about vegeteranism in india only.
5. being a vegeterian apart from being born to a bramin male or being adopted by a bramin male or marrying a bramin male are only exclusive ways by which a person can become a bramin.
6. alcohol has been used in very small quantities only as medicine for many centuries in india. this is very good. there is no need to talk about foreign countries here. our discussion is relevant only for indian conditions.
7. it is not persons who consume meat, but persons who kill animals for eating their meat, who are considered impure & inferior. after animals die a natural death, flesh & meat can be extracted & consumed by humans. though bramins cannot do even this non bramin hindus areallowed to do this.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Aiyayayooooooo!

Classification of food items based on their veg origins and non-veg origins is like five blind people trying to figure out what an elephant is. Sample this:

1. Alcohol is a 'veg' dish - it can not be made from non-veg origin substances. In its double distilled form, it is free of any form of bacteria or virus. Only it has a different form of psycho-psomatic effects compared to tea, coffee etc. Needless to point out, majority of Tambrams survive on 'Filter Coffee' (me included).

2. Curd (Dahi, Lassi, buttermilk etc.) - Are you sure about this being a veg item? Why not examine a drop of curd under the microscope before drawing conclusions?

3. Ice cream, cakes, pudding, jelly , medicine capsule shells etc. all contain gelatin, a non-veg substance extracted from animal bones (also extractable from human bones).

 

[NARAS]

sir - anything which is extracted from an animal without injuring or killing that animal is also vegetarian. for example milk, is extracted from cow, an animal. is it then nonvegetarian because it is extracted from an animal? by that logic all humans are cannibals, because we all drink milk extracted from our mother! but anything which is extracted from an animal by injuring or killing that animal is 100%non vegetarian. let there be no doubt about this.

i feel this veggie -non veggie dispute is of recent origin. vedic bramins banned consumption of anything which they considered will affect normal behaviour. for e.g. alcohol, eggs why even onions and garlic were banned because the consumption of these would lead to increase in sexual desires in one way or other, directly or indirectly. so even onion & garlic were taboo for orthodx bramins for many centuries, and even now, as has been pointed out many times before in this forum.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Nashaa Sharaab Mein Hota to Naachti Bottle!

The thread is actually a double topic i.e., vegetarianism and alcoholism and is a perfectly secular topic.

There is no reason why postings of only hindu/tambraministic views are to be allowed.

We have had more than adequate and prolix deliberations on vegetarianism, enough for one lifetime.

So how about some specialized talk on alcoholism?

IMHO, alcoholism has following dimesions:

1. Strict tea-totalarism (under religious compulsion)
2. Strict tea-totalarism (not under religious compulsion, but due to personal
habits)
3. Social Drinking-puppy type (college/university student escapedes, person
is financially dependant on parents or others)
4. Social Drinking (adult type-i.e., not financially dependent on parents or
others)
5. Regular/Heavy Drinking, at others cost
6. Regular/Heavy Drinking, at own expense
7. Hopelessly lush cases, irrespective of who picks up the tab


Category 1 & 2 are worthy of respect, you may or may not be able to emulate such people.

Category 3 - scoff at them/admonish them/give pep talk.

Category 4 - join them or else Look the other way

Category - 5 ,6 & 7 - AVOID their company - they are sure poison.

 

[Chintana]

Why only Hindu/Tambraministic views are allowed

Dear lotus_quartz,

I admire your egalitarianistic views. Several of us forum members have egalitarian sentiments.

But the purpose of this forum is to give a voice to Tamil Brahmins and Brahmins in general. Why? Because we are not given a voice anywhere else in the social/political arena and the press. We are concerned about preserving our community - our way of doing it is to give a voice to Brahmins.

There are several secular websites where perhaps several forum members go and post their views. You are welcome to contribute there.

The purpose of THIS website is to help Brahmins first - and that includes encouragement of secular topics. We are interested only in Brahmins' take on them. All others have voices elsewhere.



quote=lotus_quartz;5868]The thread is actually a double topic i.e., vegetarianism and alcoholism and is a perfectly secular topic.

There is no reason why postings of only hindu/tambraministic views are to be allowed.

 

[lotus_quartz]

My previous post was only to invite attention of the honorable members to a balanced perspective.

While we all cherish the values inherited from our ancestors, we are not completely divorced from the rest of the society. We must endeavour to perpetuate those values which have universal and eternal values and which stand the test of reason and logic.

As I have already stated, vegetarianism and tea-totalarism are good virtues, worthy of emulating but without getting too much dogmatic about it.

Dear lotus_quartz,

I admire your egalitarianistic views. Several of us forum members have egalitarian sentiments.

But the purpose of this forum is to give a voice to Tamil Brahmins and Brahmins in general. Why? Because we are not given a voice anywhere else in the social/political arena and the press. We are concerned about preserving our community - our way of doing it is to give a voice to Brahmins.

There are several secular websites where perhaps several forum members go and post their views. You are welcome to contribute there.

The purpose of THIS website is to help Brahmins first - and that includes encouragement of secular topics. We are interested only in Brahmins' take on them. All others have voices elsewhere.



quote=lotus_quartz;5868]The thread is actually a double topic i.e., vegetarianism and alcoholism and is a perfectly secular topic.

There is no reason why postings of only hindu/tambraministic views are to be allowed.

 

[hariharan1972]

How to handle ? - My take

1. Strict tea-totalarism (under religious compulsion)
2. Strict tea-totalarism (not under religious compulsion, but due to personal
habits)
3. Social Drinking-puppy type (college/university student escapedes, person
is financially dependant on parents or others)
4. Social Drinking (adult type-i.e., not financially dependent on parents or
others)
5. Regular/Heavy Drinking, at others cost
6. Regular/Heavy Drinking, at own expense
7. Hopelessly lush cases, irrespective of who picks up the tab

Handling of each case.

1. Abivaadaya, Aaadab / Khuda haafiz, Amen

2. Tussi Great Ho !

3. Slap Hard !

4. (With glass in hand), where do you think the market is headed ?

5. Sorry da machan, forgot my credit card today, some other day ?

6. Dei Kudigara naye !

7. Look the other way

 

[Chintana]

Balanced?

A balanced perspective, did you say?

Several of the forum members agree that there are all degrees of adherents to vegetarianism and teetolalitarianism in the community. And we all agree that they all belong to the Brahmin community. I am pretty sure you know that too. So what do you mean by 'balanced'?

What, according to you are 'universal and eternal values that stand the test of logic?' Give me an example or two.

What exactly to you mean by 'dogmatic?'

My previous post was only to invite attention of the honorable members to a balanced perspective.

While we all cherish the values inherited from our ancestors, we are not completely divorced from the rest of the society. We must endeavour to perpetuate those values which have universal and eternal values and which stand the test of reason and logic.

As I have already stated, vegetarianism and tea-totalarism are good virtues, worthy of emulating but without getting too much dogmatic about it.

 

[hariharan1972]

May I ?

What exactly to you mean by 'dogmatic?'

To me it is staying AWAY from "ONLY"es.....

Only if you don't drink..........
Only if you don't eat Non Veg.......
Only if you allow someone inside your home......
Only if you allow someone to be married with........

I call them stereotypes.

Sorry LQ, for nose butting, you may please......

 

[lotus_quartz]

Tough going

Well, the going gets tougher as we go further.

The arguments I give now onwards may not be treated as in support of alcoholism, for that is not my intention. Also, I am not really qualified to delve deeply in philosophical issues, though still I may try.

IMHO, eternal values are those which cut across the religious and ethnic barriers and would appeal to a large proportion of human society. Examples are, truth, liberty, justice, compassion, duty, sacrifice etc. One does not need endorsement of these values by the religious text or preachings to believe in these.

Dogmatic beliefs are blind adherence to certain practices and beliefs which are either totally irrational or were framed under circumstances which are no longer valid. e.g., untouchability, stratification based on birth, disallowing widow marriage, child marriages, sati ......the list is quite long. These beliefs , even if endorsed by religious texts would be hard to justify or preach to educated minds.

 

[rxrajamo]

Naras

Reg your stetement " 3.Man himself came from a animal i.e. monkey. then how can man be designed to eat animals?"

If this were true, lions, tigers and all other meat eating predators should not eat meat. They came from animals too. In fact some of them eat their own kith and kin.

BTW, man's closest relative in the ape family is chimpanzee and chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. It is a well documented fact. We may debate about whether Vedic age Brahmins ate meat or not. But there is no question that in the evolutionary process our human ancestors did eat meat. There is no question on that.

On a lighter note, President Bush does not seem to believe in evolution theory as well.

Ramki
Ramki

 

[Chintana]

Your clarification

Thank you for your definition hariharan1972. I happen to know perfectly well what the dictionary meaning of dogma is and how that concept could be applied to some of our traditions.

But if only everybody used all words in the dictionary in the same exact way!

We normally have a tendency to infuse our own meanings into dictionary words. I was asking lotus_quartz for the specific meaning that s/he used in her/his posting.

I do agree with you in that the so called dogmas can take the form of stereotypes.

So now we already have two different words for one thing (I still dont know what that is , that is why I asked for a clarification), i.e., dogma and stereotypes.

Will wait for lotus_quartz's take on this.

To me it is staying AWAY from "ONLY"es.....

Only if you don't drink..........
Only if you don't eat Non Veg.......
Only if you allow someone inside your home......
Only if you allow someone to be married with........

I call them stereotypes.

Sorry LQ, for nose butting, you may please......

 

[Chintana]

On toughening up

My responses to lotus_quartz's previous posting are in blue italics below.

Well, the going gets tougher as we go further.

Glad you recognize that providing a convincing argument is tough business.

The arguments I give now onwards may not be treated as in support of alcoholism, for that is not my intention. Also, I am not really qualified to delve deeply in philosophical issues, though still I may try.

IMHO, eternal values are those which cut across the religious and ethnic barriers and would appeal to a large proportion of human society. Examples are, truth, liberty, justice, compassion, duty, sacrifice etc. One does not need endorsement of these values by the religious text or preachings to believe in these.

Really? Do you truly believe that people have a single way of defining AND practicing truth? Is there a single definition for 'justice'? Then why should different countries have different judicial systems? Why can't we abolish the entire lot and have just one international court and a single law. That would definitely save a lot of money for all the countries in the world. Is there truly one single way of practicing compassion? Then why are we having international debates about whether mercy-killing (euthanasia) should be practiced at all? Similarly is there a uniform way by which 'duty' is practiced? The list can go on.

What is your response to this?

Dogmatic beliefs are blind adherence to certain practices and beliefs which are either totally irrational or were framed under circumstances which are no longer valid. e.g., untouchability, stratification based on birth, disallowing widow marriage, child marriages, sati ......the list is quite long. These beliefs , even if endorsed by religious texts would be hard to justify or preach to educated minds.

So what you actually mean by dogma is outdated practices which continue to exist without anybody seriously analyzing whether it is appropriate in the present circumstances or not. Yes. We all agree that those practices are there and they need to be rooted out. One purpose of the coming together of this forum is to be able to identify such issues which are problematic and figure out how they can be changed. We do have to check how much of a sanction these practices have from our religious texts and how to do away with empty superstition. That is a valid concern.

But to suggest that any hint at upholding traditional values is 'dogma' is a bit of a stretch. Let us also understand that this thread is about vegetarianism. In your list of dogma vegetarianism is not listed. I can only infer that you understand that vegetarianism has a logic to it - that it is not empty 'dogma'. Several posters have discussed the physical and spiritual benefits that vegetarianism brings.

As you have hinted at vegetarianism being 'dogmatic' it seems to me that in your mind anybody who advocates vegetarianism believes in "untouchability, stratification based on birth, disallowing widow marriage, child marriages, sati" etc.

Why this nervousness about anything traditional? Why the seeming unwillingness to look at what might be good in there that can be adapted to today's context (this is what we are trying to do in this forum)?

If this is NOT what you intended to say then the word 'dogma' is inappropriate in your posting. And it is inconsistent with the ideals of vegetarianism.

Hariharan1972, this is the reason I asked lotus_quartz for the meaning of dogma - to understand what that person meant.

 

[Chintana]

On Vegetarianism

Dear KRS Ji,

My reponse is in maroon italics. These are my opinions although I have not prefaced every sentence with words such as "I think" or "In my view".

Dear Sri Chintana Ji,

My thoughts on this:

1. This diet is being recognized as the healthiest of all diets nowadays (Vegan or not) provided the Protein requirements are met by combining a grain with a lentil.

I would add a good mix of fresh vegetables and fruits.

2. This diet is supposed to increase one's 'Sattvic' qualities which are conducive for one to pursue a path of 'Jnana Yoga', in Hinduism.

It is conducive for spiritual growth, period. Whether it is Bhakthi, Karma or Gnana Marga of Yoga.

3. However, this diet has also increased the 'Diabeteic' conditions of folks in India. This has happened because of the way rice is now polished off at the mills, making it almost behave as sugar in one's body.

Because a lot of vegetarians don't eat enough fresh vegetables and fruits. And not many drink enough water. Polished rice may be one reason, but not the only one. Besides good exercises (such as Hatha Yoga) help a lot. Again not many people do them. One reason why we want to promote such good things in this forum.



4. This diet is not by itself anything 'pure' or 'superior' in terms of a society, because this diet, in post Vedic periods were definitely not recommended for Kshatrias, in Hinduism.

Are you not contradicting yourself? Please refer to your point #2. You say that it promotes sattivic qualities. Here you mention that this diet is not inherently superior. I am confused.


5. This diet definitely impedes one's performance in the fields of athletics and other physical sports.

Sure. And we all know that there are virtually no athletes who exist out there (at least nationally/internationally competitive ones) that has not broken a bone or invited some other serious physical damage to oneself. I am glad vegetarianism does not promote it.

I do believe that it is possible to play games of one's choice with a strictly vegetarian diet. That person may not be able to compete at a national level. In other words you can have physical activity but not extreme forms of it. Wasn't Swami Vivekananda a good wrestler and a sports person in his younger days?



6. Man is designed to be Omnivorous and so, this was not the 'natural' diet in the history of the humans.

I disagree. Man...er...shall we say humans?... were designed to be a creation invested in the conscious evolution of the mind; to take active effort in shaping the direction of one's life by making use of appropriate opportunities using one's sense of discrimination. All other habits and practices were meant to support this endeavor.

7. Men, who are born in the regions of the world where just being Vegetarian is impossible (Cold regions, such as Lapland, etc.), have no options to adopt to this diet.

I have no comment on this one.

8. Being a 'Vegetarian' in the post Vedic culture is a necessary condition to being called a 'Brahmin'. But it is not a sufficient condition. Being born to a 'Brahmin' father is not either. We are discussing this in our thread "Who are we?", elsewhere in this Forum.

I think the condition that defines one as being Brahmin or not (whether in Vedic period or post-Vedic period) is her/his character and aspriations. A trustworthy, credible person working for the welfare of others by continually investing in evolving one's own mind - that to me, is a Brahmin. S/he can make money in the process but only so the work of God - the Maya - can continue to exist. Unselfishness is a very important trait. So is a steadfastness to an inner sense of truth indicated by constantly evolving sense of intuition.

For the achievement of certain higher levels of mental evolution one needs to be sensitive to subtle energy currents in the cosmos. The receptivity to this subtlety is enhanced by keeping the mind as free of restlessness as possible. A vegetarian diet best helps achieve this. Non-vegetarian foods tend to interfere with our inner energy flow because digesting animal flesh takes more inner energy (it is a subtle kind of cosmic energy ordinarily not felt by everybody unless one's mind is completely at rest) - thus it becomes harder to control prana.

Vegetarianism, thus, is one of the shells that promotes development of the fruit of consciousness within. Without the effort to improve oneself spiritually vegetarianism is of much lesser value (recently of course there is a lot of talk about vegetarianism being a good anti-cancer diet). But we do have vegetarianism as an external indicator to identify Brahmins with the fond hope that they are doing the internal work too!


9. Ahimsa is integral to our religion and it has developed over centuries. But in essence all food we eat are thought of as the 'sacrificial offerings' to the Devas. ALL OUR ACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SCARIFICES.

I don't know if 'sacrifice' is the word here. But I would definitely go with 'offering'.


Alcoholism to me, as it pertains to our scriptures and as it is practiced by our society is bad. In the wine producing regions of the world, wine is considred as a part of diet and is not abused. I guess that is the difference. In countries where an alcoholic drink is not considered as a part of the diet, it is always abused. England and India are prime examples.

Anything that dullens the senses gets you no where. Our customs place a premium on ultimate awareness. So it is a no-no for us; that no-no is articulated more strongly in our traditions than it is in other religions.


Pranams,
KRS

Thank you,
Chintana

 

[NARAS]

The 'V' FACTOR & VAT FOR BRAMINS!

sir - when you are saying vegeteranism , it is a very big "V" which includes abstaining from drinking & smoking also. it is not very difficult to guess why it has been insisted for centuries that bramins should follow VAT- Vegeteranism, Abstaining from alcohol& Tobacco abhorrence. if you consume these products, your physique will become so rough,you cannot develop the noble & gentle qualities expected of a bramin. unfortunately, it has become a fashion to say 'i drink,i smoke or even i eat meat'. fashion, revolution & reform are the most misused words in india. what is revolution or reform?
if any person speaks against established traditions, he is called a revolutionry or reformer! it must be noted here that what is OLD today was NEWonce, and what is NEW today is also going to become OLD tomorrow. for e.g.i understand once upon a time it was considered revolutionary for a widow, not to remarry and remain unmarried throughout her life. but nowadays, widow remarriage is considered revolutionary.

another point is that, most of these 'reformers' or 'revolutionaries' never practice in their own life, what they preach. most of these 'reformers' indulge in violence & abusive language. BTW, i do agree that Vegeteranism in its orthodox form cannot be propagated or compelled in present world. for e.g. you can at the most ask people not to kill or injure animals for eating their flesh or skin. even eggs & milk are classified by some persons as non vegeterian. though morally this may be correct, practically & legally i think milk & eggs cannot be treated the same way as meat. of course i drink lot of milk, though i have avoided eggs in any form.

i was talking to a friend of mine last week. he is married and has got 2 children. he was talking to me till 09 .00pm one night. i told him that 'its already 09.00 p.m. your wife will be waiting for you.go and enjoy!' but he told me that 'there was no question of enjoyment on that night, because it was an amavasya. ' i personally knew that orthodox couples avoid mating on amavasya because it is believed it is a sin to copulate on amavasya, because on that day you are supposed to devote your entire thinking to your forefathers & ancestors and god. there is even a curse that if any couple cohabit on amavasya, the child born because of this will not be healthy. my friend told me that'even though nowadays there is option of preventing childbirth inspite of having sexual contact, because of contraceptives & many other devices, he did not resort to that because he wanted to express solidarity with many persons who abstained from normal, natural pleasures on amavasya even in this modern world!' my friend was a bramin, but unfortunately there are bramins in today's world who feel vegeteranism is a digression' or 'distraction' for bramins. it is like a women saying 'chastity' is a digression and distraction for her!

ramki sir has compared animals with human beings regarding meat eating. friend- you must remember that animals are not bound by law , culture or rationality but humans are. so this comparison is not 100% valid.

Child marriages, sati, untouchability, all have been banned by law. so no person can practice these 'dogmas' even in private. as far widow remarriages, the law allows it. but it is left to the wisdom of an individual and his or her wellwishers if they want to implement it. it should not be forced on anybody by projecting it as as 'revolution', 'reform' or'fashion'.

we have discussed many serious issues. let us have some fun. Cinema lyricist vallee has once again proved he has got a very high sense of humour. he has said that K.Kanimozhi, 'daughter' of the karunanidhi should becomenext chief minister of t.nadu!!!!!