DOUBTS AND CLARIFICATIONS - 8

\

DOUBTS AND CLARIFICATIONS

DOUBT:  Which are Sattvika food items?  Which are the food items to be avoided?  Is meat eating wrong?

CLARIFICATION:  Shri Krishna does not classify foods.  He only talks about variation in taste preferences according to Gunas.  Sattvika person knows the direction in life very clearly.  Hence, while describing his taste, Shri Krishna mentions the effects of foods and says Sattvika person will prefer foods that will give strength, health and long life.  The Rajasik person is always in excited state and does not think about effects.  He prefers momentous, exciting tastes.  Hence, Shri Krishna does not mention types of foods but the tastes he chooses, while describing Rajasik preference.  He says that Rajasik person prefers excessively salty, hot, spicy, sour foods.  Shri Krishna cautions that these tastes are momentarily exciting, but harmful in effect.  The Tamasik person, having lost his viveka, neither thinks about actions nor about their effects.  Hence, he prefers tasteless and spoiled foods types, according to Shri Krishna.

Foods with mild tastes may be counted as Sattvika, foods of extreme tastes as Rajasik and tasteless and spoiled foods as Tamasik ones.  The foods which leave soothing, satisfying pleasure are Sattvika.  Foods that stimulate thirst, burning effect in mouth and stomach and restlessness are Rajasik and the foods that produce dullness, laziness, sleep and an intoxicated state are Tamasik.  It is difficult to classify food items.  Each one must choose his own food type.  He must fine tune food habits he has acquired from his family and community and adopt his food type.

The cooked food reaches our dining plates on the last step.  How much of Sattvika was there in the previous steps is also important.  Were the grains and other food materials bought with hard and honestly earned money?  Was the money earned without violence on other lives and without cruelty to animals?  Were the grains, vegetables and other food materials produced without violence on soil, Nature and other lives through excessive use of chemicals, pesticides and huge machinery?  Were the laborers paid reasonably and not subjected to undue exploitation?  Were the cook and the kitchen clean while the food was being cooked?  Were sublime, Godly thoughts and Sattvika, noble thoughts generated in eater’s mind while eating?  Is the eater clean?  Is the place where he eats clean?  If your answers to these questions is ‘yes’, then any type of food is Sattvika.  These aspects make a food Sattvika.

It is you who has to decide whether to eat meat or not.  Do not adopt meat eating only to avoid being mocked, teased or to be accepted in a group.  Do not give up meat eating only to earn respect and false status.  Abstinence from meat eating is not superior or eating meat is not lowly.  Sattvika is not superior.  Sattvika eases journey to Godhood.  That is all.

DOUBT:  If I strictly observe Aachaara (guidelines on conduct), especially on cleanliness, I am told “You hurt others and hence you must discard these”.  I am confused.  Should I not follow my set of rules?

CLARIFICATION:  I too thought this way in my earlier days.  This is the impact of propaganda.  I remember an incident which occurred a few years back in Tamil Nadu.  It was a public programme.  A sannyaasi, an industrialist, a few politicians and social dignitaries were on the dais.  A politician holding a top position bent low and tried to touch his feet to express his respect for the Sannyaasi.  The Sannyaasi moved back a little to avoid being touched.  This news was flashed in all newspapers and TV channels and the Sannyaasi was criticized and condemned for his behavior.  He has his own restrictions.  He does not touch anyone, nor does anyone else touch him.  Anyone wanting to worship him do so from a distance.  To demand that he should discard his Niyama or restriction is absurdity and arrogance.

I do not shake hands.  I greet with folded hands and joined palms.  If extends his arm expecting a shake-hand and I respond in my own way, and if he feels offended, that is his problem.  If a VIP enters my house just when I am out of my toilet and if he expects me to greet and welcome him, he will be mistaken.  I have to clean my palms, feet and rinse my mouth and only then, I will go and receive him.  I won’t be responsible if he feels insulted.  I return from a hospital or travel or am just of my bed and mother brings a cup of coffee.  If she gets offended when I refuse to take coffee and insist on taking a bath before eating or drinking anything, then I will not be responsible.  I return from hair cutting saloon and go straight into the bathroom and have a bath.  That is my Aachaara niyama.  If this is branded as caste prejudice and retrograde and in the name of progressive outlook, if I am expected to mix with all, enter all rooms without a bath, then I should not be held responsible for offending them.  If I discard my regulation for fear of being condemned, responsibility is wholly mine.

You be firm on your way.  Do not regard your way as superior and develop arrogance.  You need not condemn or deride others’ ways.  Regard your way as the most suitable to you.  That is all.  Others will understand you in due course.  You need not resort to any effort to make them understand you.

DOUBT:  Be like everyone else, say all, even those I respect.  Is it wrong to be different?

CLARIFICATION:  ‘Like everyone else’ has no meaning.  Because not all are same.  Everyone is different according to his own swabhava.  These words have to be understood keeping in mind the level of the sayer.  In a film the hero asks a bearded person, “Why have you grown a beard like a beggar?”  He will be that.  That is his level.  When he rises up he will say, “You look like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.”  Why bother?  Do not be affected by others’ opinions and comments.  You be concerned about yourself.

Are you being different or are you different?  Are you trying to be different or are you your natural self?  Are you putting on a mask in order to be different?  Or are you expressing self in your natural colours?  Are you posing (for others) or are you exposing yourself as you are?  If posing for others, then it is hypocritical.  Are you the same, everywhere or you present a different posture in some places and when among some groups?  If you change pose to be different in different places, then you are hypocritical.  If your posture stirs up disturbance within, then you are being hypocritical.  Hypocrisy is dangerous.

\\\\\ HARIH OM TAT SAT \\\\\