I’ve long been fascinated by the demographics of vegetarianism. I’m an omnivore, but one who eats a lot less meat than my peers, so they confuse my insistence that we order a vegetable dish (when eating out family style) with an unwillingness to consume animal flesh.
In the UK, it seems that vegetarians are smarter:
… those who were vegetarian by [age] 30 had recorded five IQ points more on average at the age of 10. [Link]
<
p>Although this study is flawed by its overly broad definition of vegetarian:
Twenty years after the IQ tests were carried out in 1970, 366 of the participants said they were vegetarian – although more than 100 reported eating either fish or chicken. [Link]
<
p>
Unfortunately, they don’t report adjusted scores, so really what they’re talking about here is an unwillingness to eat beef, which makes them … well, like many Hindus I know.
With the definitional caveat, in general, this is what they find about veggies:
Vegetarians were more likely to be female, to be of higher occupational social class and to have higher academic or vocational qualifications than non-vegetarians. [Link]
<
p>Researchers find something similar in India, where vegetarians are more likely to be female and of higher social status.
<
p>Vegetarianism is declining in India, to the point where vegetarians are now a minority, with only 40% of the population. This is apparently a major shift from the recent past.
<
p>The older generation remains more vegetarian than the younger, women more so than men, Brahmins more than other castes, and religious Hindus more than non-religious Hindus, Muslims, or Christians.
<
p>This is a seismic cultural shift for India. While India will remain far more veg friendly than the US or UK for a long time to come, I’m wondering about the cultural ramifications that accompany the situation where vegetarianism is associated with a narrow minority. Once upon a time, you could not get meat on the streets of Ahmedabad, now the road by IIM is lined with little 3 wheelers selling chicken.
What happens to Indian society and culture when it undergoes a fundamental shift in its eating habits? How will it change?
I don’t think so.. It is just that perceptions are changing to match with facts on ground. I’d guess that India had always been a non-vegetarian majority country.. The Hindu article that goes with the charts is link From the article..
I think the Hindu report is probably genuine. Atleast the Tamilnadu numbers of ONLY 8% being vegetarians gels with my observations..
SST —
Re: Caste. Consider that religious Hindus are 43% and non religious Hindus are 28% vegetarian. This also makes the rest of the caste numbers problematic unless there is a missing caste group with high numbers of vegetarians. This might make the math work out. Or it means that the caste section is crocked, but the other numbers might still be fine.
Yeah, I just lurrve it in my there 😉
People often say that many Indians are de facto vegetarian because they can not afford to eat meat/chicken on a regular basis…which is probably true…but can someone explain how Muslims, who on average are even poorer than most non-Muslims, manage to consume meat daily (if not at every single meal)? Even in Pakistan, which overall is not as prosperous as the richest parts of India (for example Punjab in Pakistan is poorer than Punjab in India) people eat so much meat, whereas in even the richest parts of India, it’s a few times a week, tops (for non-Muslims). Is it because most Muslims are eating cheaper, lower-grade meat? Or is it that Muslims are willing to spend a bigger % of their income on meat?
Or is it due to cultural factors, that even those in India (non-Muslim) who COULD afford to eat meat daily if they so desired, limit their consumption due to the fact that culturally they are just not attuned to eating it daily?
The Hindu report makes some stupid conclusions, associating location with diet. Many parts of Gujarat are more ‘coastal’ than parts of West Bengal. Calcutta especially, is “land-locked” and not on the sea. Non-vegetarian dishes in India are sides and not the main course, which continues to made of rice (or other coarse grains), lentils, and vegetables. Despite the world’s largest cattle herds, meat on the hoof isn’t cheap. And large masses of people will simply not eat beef, whether Hindu or not.
Yes, for example Diwali/Deepavali is one of the few festivals celebrated in our region by many people with a lot of non-veg dishes.. But if it falls on one or the other auspicious days (we have plenty) it will be a no non-veg day.. Many people don’t eat meat on Saturdays (and probably on Tuesdays..) Ofcourse when I say meat, it is mostly non-beef by Hindus.. Fish and other seafood/chicken/mutton constitute the non-veg food for a lot of Indians I know..
Have you ever dated a Muslim boy or a boy born to Muslim parents?
I am one!
You’re avoiding answering the question.
No, I am not gay.
deshiksa (#2):
I was invited to dinner at the house of the principal of one of the colleges here in Madurai (Tamil Nadu). The only dish that didn’t involve meat was the salad. I’ve known several vegetarians who’ve come to Tamil Nadu on a relatively long-term basis (1-2 years) who’ve ended up eating meat just because whenever they went to someone’s house for dinner, they found it impossible to find a vegetarian dish – or because Chicken 65 is the best stuff on Earth!
Granted, these families most likely don’t eat meat every day, but when they have guests for dinner, mutton and/or chicken are most certainly on the menu (in non-Brahmin households).
several vegetarian foreigners*
Vivek, I’m surprised that some of your friends started eating meat because they couldn’t find enough vegetarian dishes in Tamil Nadu. I’ve been living here for the last two years and think that it’s a haven for vegetarians, with so many “pure vegetarian” restaurants which don’t cook meat. I’ve ended up eating a lot more vegetables than I would have otherwise, after being here. In sharp contrast, it was harder for me to find such places in Delhi.
“Ahinsã is not just non-violence. It also encompasses respect and consideration for life and peaceful, harmonious living.
Explanation: The Concept of Ahinsã Ahinsã is the feeling that attempts to reduce harm to all living creatures. The concept of Ahinsã is meant to be practiced by:
In renowned Hindu scriptures such as the Maḥbḥrat (3-207-7), the Ṿsudev Ṃḥtmya (20/21), and the Padma Puṛn (1.31.27), Ahinṣ is referred to as the highest virtue of life: Ahinṣ paramo dharma. Bhagẉn Sẉmiṇrayan has referred to the practice of Ahinṣ throughout His Shiksḥpatri Рthe code of conduct for devotees:
Vegetarianism: An Application of Ahinsã A practical application of Ahinsã seen in Hinduism is vegetarianism – as it fosters the sentiment of respect for other living creatures. The most ancient Hindu scriptures curbed the practice of killing animals by imposing strict ritualistic regulations which are very difficult to ordinarily meet. Those who were following the spiritual path and wanted to attain God were prohibited altogether from killing animals and consuming animal flesh because such consumption hinders spiritual progress. Hindu scriptures say that killing animals and consuming their flesh leads to violence in our thoughts and behavior. It spoils oneÂ’s character and obstructs oneÂ’s acquisition of noble virtues. Today, some people feel that because they are not actually killing the animal themselves, eating the flesh and other body parts of a dead animal does not violate the code of Ahinsã. However, Hindus consider the consumption of dead animal flesh to be a barbaric practice. The Vãsudev Mãhãtmya and other Hindu scriptures state that one who consumes animal flesh, who sells animal flesh, or who prepares animal flesh – all of these people accrue the same sin as the person who slaughters the animal. This is similar to the Western idea that the murderer and the accessory to the murder are both guilty of the killing. Some people argue that God has given us the ability to kill animals and digest animal flesh; therefore God must have wanted us to eat animals. One could easily respond that God has given us the intelligence and ability to kill humans and digest human flesh, so in that belief system, did God give us this ability because he wanted us to eat human flesh? The flaw in this argument becomes clear here. These people have made the grave error of confusing ability and civility, or ethics. Men may have the ability to kill animals and eat animal flesh, but that does not make it right. Humans have the ability to do some very bad things. But civilization, ethics, morality, and dharma are all meant to restrain man from exercising his full barbaric, animalistic capability and instead, to elevate him from this animalistic condition to the plane of humanity and even higher to the plane of spirituality. It is with this intent of elevating mankind from just a human being to a spiritual being that Hinduism has propagated the value of Ahinsã and its corollary vegetarianism.
Q.6 How does the practice of self-defense fit into the concept of Ahinsã? A. Ahinsã is not just non-violence or not resorting to arms, but it is also the feeling that tries to reduce harm to all living creatures. Sometimes, force or violence may in fact be necessary to prevent harm. Suppose a train is heading towards a child who is standing in the middle of railroad tracks. We would be inclined to push the child out of the way to save his or her life. Suppose that a wild animal is running ferociously to attack a group of tourists. The animal may need to be wounded to prevent harm to numerous people. Ahinsã recognizes the right to defend oneÂ’s self, family, community, and country through the most feasible and appropriate, yet least violent, means necessary. However, defending oneself should never be used to justify violence that is not provoked or warranted. One should be careful that defending oneÂ’s self does not become a hidden form of aggression.”
http://www.baps.org/faq/hinduism.htm#5
Would a vegetarian have a problem seeing rice harvesting on TV? Would you change the channel if your 4 year old wacthed an indian farmer wading through a paddy field? Would you mind taking her to the fields and showing her where her dinner comes from ? Apply same to semiconductor physics.
Or would you change the channel if they showed a cow being slaughtered on TV? Or would you agree to give her a tour of the meat packing plant, show her how cows are stunned(UCLA ishtyle) before they’re slaughtered?
Is it the same ?…umm.. dont think so.
Ok, so you might say, its different with children.
Coming back to my original argument, how many people will be unwilling to harvest their own rice AND cringe or feel uncomfortable at the sight of a paddy farmer in the fields BECAUSE of moral reasons. Im not just talking about (un)willingness to do it yourself.
3 Different things:
1.Unwillingness to be a participant eg. Me refusing to go harvest my own rice because I think its uncomfortable to stand in all that water and get messy, so Id rather have someone else do it for me. No moral issues involved here.Would watch it on tv.Plain comfort seeking.
2.Unwillingness to be a participant and discomfort in witnessing action eg. I would not like to clean city sewage lines or necessarily be comfortable watching sewage lines being cleaned on tv, but I have no moral issues about it. Same with performing post-mortems. I wouldnt like to do it, and I wouldnt like to witness it, but Im ok with someone else doing it.Again, no moral issues here.
So now you might say, well how do you know there is an element of morality involved when people cringe at animal-slaughter? It just could be that the person thinks that blood and guts are gross just like untreated sewage is gross and so dont wanna get involved with messy stuff. Agreed, there could be some people who would be uncomfortable just because they think its gross, but what about the rest? I think most people find it morally disturbing to witness an animal killing. This is because they can relate to the manner of death. If I cut a plant and it bled and kicked and screamed, I would probably have the same issues. But plants dont die like that, so we cant relate to that death or pain (if plants feel pain…dont know if they do?!?). My opinion is that death can be easily related to if the subject happens to be in the same kingdom as the witness. So we dont have moral issues with killing bacteria or viruses or plants or fungi because we cant relate to their death. But if we can relate to the death of a fellow member of the animal kingdom, and that death morally disturbs us, but we choose to turn away BECAUSE we enjoy the end product of that death is Hypocrisy to me. phew!!…A detailed rant-ish explanation of what i said in the first comment.
Anna, I went to school with quite a few Malayali Christian boys. Not one vegetarian amongst them! One or two have married women who were vegetarians but who now cook meat (even though they don’t eat it). I think that’s quite a feat- to get yourself to cook something you don’t care to eat. I can’t bring myself to cook meat so my husband eats mor kozhambu and vendakkai at home and sushi outside!
ANNA: You have never dated a Muslim boy or a boy born to Muslim parents? You are missing out on some of the finer things in life!
How about Muslim girls? I haven\’t dated a Muslim girl yet, am I missing out on some finer things in life too?
I too have real problems believing the numbers – 40% of indians being vegetarian is not supported by the numbers on the link.
Besides, I have lived in several different parts of India (delhi, culcutta, madras, Bangalore, bombay and other small cities) and really, the vegetarians were always rare – less than 10% , even though I hung out in highly educated groups which tend to have a disproportionately large percentage of brahmin and other high caste origin.
Lang (#112)
Yeah, there are plenty of vegetarian restaurants to get huge rice meals with lots of sambar, kuzhambu, rasam, and poriyal.
But I was referring to going to people’s houses for dinner: meat meat meat meat meat. Special occasions dictate meat here, in my experience (to re-iterate: in non-Brahmin households). Eventually my friends wanted to make friends with people, and the easiest way to do this was to eat what they were offered.
The Vedas trumps all other scriptures in hinduism. It is Sruthi. You will find animal and even human sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. Many hindus still sacrifice animals. It took the British to outlaw human sacrifice and widow burning in India. How do you reconcile these facts with “Ahinsã paramo dharma”?
“How do you reconcile these facts with “Ahinsã paramo dharma”?”
Why did Lord Rama go deep into the woods? To camp out? No, to kill a deer for either sport or food. I wonder if the principle of “ahinsa” in Hindu scriptures conveniently excluded the killing of animals for food. And what about the Gita, in which the killing of the bad guys is supposed to be the Pandava’s “karma,” and letting them go free a sin?
One has to admire the relativism of Hindu principles. So much in life is relative and contextual, not absolute.
My cousin’s husband is a Kathiawadi (region in Gujarat that wants independence…just kidding), and he told me that although the women never ate meat or drank alcohol, and meat was never cooked at home (nor alcohol served), the young men would often get together, go to somebody’s fields, and cook meat and drink there. He said this was a widespread practice where he grew up. Sometimes I wonder if he’s exaggerating the prevalence of that practice in order to fit in more with our meat-eating, alcohol imbibing family. But it sounds cool to me. One of the best tandoori barbeques I ever had was at a Gujju friend’s wedding (in Ohio of all places). His dad was the chef.
Floridian,
“Ahimsa” is a guideline in Hinduism, yes, but principles of non-violence such as “ahimsa” are found in most major religions. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ comes to mind. Note the lack of qualifiers in Romans 13:9. I think it is not to be interpreted as an absolute there either.
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Non-cruelty: Vegetarianism is sometimes justified on the basis on non-cruelty, although I personally question applying it in this context. A textual analysis of the Mahabhartha reveal that non-cruelty (anrsamsya) occurs as the highest dharma more often than “ahimsa”. A quote from wonderful “Rethinking the Mahabharata” by Prof. Hiltebeitel (who is a great guy by the way) :
Of the fifty-four instance I have found in the Mahabharata, the taly for different excellences said to be the “highest dharma” is anrsamsya, 8: truth, 5; ahimsa, 4; what is in the Veda, 2; offspring, 2…
Rishi Tirumular. Author of the Tirumantiram. Considered shruti (revealed) to Shaiva Siddhantins, and contrary to what Vivek says, Brahmins are not the only traditional vegetarians in the state. this is a horrific translation but the only one I can find on the net. Vegetarianism will always be an ideal among Hindus.
http://www.gutenberg.com/eBooks/HimalayanAcademy/SacredHinduLiterature/tirumantiram/TantraOne.html
6 NOT KILLING
197: Don’t Kill Even an Atom of Life Flowers many to dear, loved Master’s worship; Even one atom of life, kill not: The lovely garland, the steady flame, the firm will, The passionate heart–such the worship’s crowning part.
198: They Who Kill Reach Hell The men who shouted,”Kill and stab,” Them with strong ropes Death’s ruffians bind; And stationing them at the fire-gates of Hell, The agents yell, “Stand, go; and in the fire pit roast.”
7 MEAT EATING–FORBIDDEN
199: Meat Eaters Will Have to Face Hell’s Torments The ignoble ones who base flesh do eat, Death’s agents bind them fast for all to see; And push them quick into tthe fiery jaws of hell, And fling them down there for ever to be.
200: Shun Sinful Living Killing, theiving, drinking, lusting, lying– These horrid sins detest and shun; to those Who Siva’s Holy Feet attain and the Bliss eternal, They come not; such men in Wisdom’s bliss ever repose
Vegetarianism will always be an ideal among Hindus. I would have to disagree with a blanket statement like that. There are instances in the Puranas and so forth of Brahmins eating meat (Agastya, for instance). And, of course, Hinduism as such has no normative book, so specific quotes from particular books would not apply to Hindus as a whole.
Once upon a time, you could not get meat on the streets of Ahmedabad, now the road by IIM is lined with little 3 wheelers selling chicken. Ain’t that the truth? There is even a stall selling food of doubtful provenance that goes by the name “Chinese something-or-the-other”. Chinese food in India is actually “better” than authentic Chinese because it often has garam masala, an oft-ignored spice in Chinese restaurants in the States. And, BTW, if you have never tried Pizza Hut in India, you should. It is da bomb!
I think one of the shifts that will happen is the availability of a greater variety of cuisines, since cuisines around the world are generally non-vegetarian. With growing affluence, there is probably going to be a growing market for food and drink from around the world.
I would have to disagree with a blanket statement like that.
I would have to disagree with you. I said an ideal, not a stricture. Ideals by definition cannot be followed by everyone, or they wouldn’t be ideals!
We used to buy chicken live. My dad would then kill it at home (in the garden). I have helped him many times with the killing as well as the plucking/cleaning afterwards. When I was past the age of ten, it was my job to buy beef. Although I never witnessed the actual killing of the cow/bull (it was really early in the morning) or goat, I have gotten to the butcher’s right after the killing on a few occasions and seen the entire process that ends with the person selling you the meat. None of this ever caused me to turn away from meat. I loved the taste of meat. I feel that MOST meat-eaters people would have similar reactions from simply seeing the process at a butcher’s shop.
I came to the US and within a couple of years, I was very disturbed by the way people here treat meat. In India, everyone seemed to have been aware that they are eating an animal. There was no such thing as ground beef which utterly removed the animal-ness of the meat. Here, it was not readily distinguishable from other foods and it was this remoteness from the actual living animal which began to really bother me. This, it seemed, was at the root of factory farming and tremendous environmental damage that is caused by the over-consumption of meat.
As far as cruelty to animals went, it was not the death itself, but the horrible lives of animals and manner of death that seemed most disturbing. I agree with many above that a visit to the factory farm and meat packing plant would be a very uncomfortable experience for most meat-eaters. Anyway, finding out the facts about the meat industry, left me no choice but to turn vegetarian. Still, I’ll be fine with eating the meat if I saw the animal being raised or knew that it was wild, and especially if I were a part of the killing and preparation.
Reading this thread, it seems funny to me that my reasons for turning vegetarian were kinda opposite of what was said earlier, i.e., “if only you could see it”.
risible, I would have to disagree with you. I said an ideal, not a stricture. Ideals by definition cannot be followed by everyone, or they wouldn’t be ideals! Everyone or anyone? Do you mean ideal in the sense that it is not practical for each and everybody (and thereby, if it were practical for you, you SHOULD do it and which was not followed by Agastya, Rama, Krishna, etc.)? In the sense that it is some state of perfection that really can never be achieved by anyone? (In which case, everbody will ‘Face Hell’s Torments’ and will be there ‘for ever to be’?) Modern Hinduism is informed by the values of the European Enlightenment, and has a universal view of human values and behavior.
Well, there is kheema (ground goatmeat usually) and kofte (meatballs). But you made excellent points.
Everyone or anyone? (In which case, everbody will ‘Face Hell’s Torments’ and will be there ‘for ever to be’?) Hell in Hinduism is a temporary state, there is no eternal damnation.
Modern Hinduism is informed by the values of the European Enlightenment, and has a universal view of human values and behavior.
Baloney. If we’re going to make categorical statements about “modern Hinduism”, I will contend that its not based on European enlightenment, but the real ‘enlightenment’ which is the transcending of the limited I for the universal self, via the experiential dimension of spirituality. If anything, the trend in modern Hindu thinking has been towards vegetarianism, not in any judgmental way, but rather because its exponents for the most part believed that a vegetarian diet was more conducive to spritual enquiry; in addition they believed that the great chain of being included all life forms, who are suffering in samsara just as we. Not everyone seeks spritual enquiry; not everyone cares about the wellfare of animals – so absolutely, an ideal.
The thinkers and mystics who preferenced vegetarianism, off the top of my head: Vallalar (Ramalinga Swamy); Arumuga Navalar; Ramana Maharshi; Vivekananda (for sanyasins); Chinmayananda; Swami Lakshman Joo (the preeminent modern exponent of Trika Shaivism); of course Gandhi. Most of these figures aren’t Brahmins. I can’t think of a single major figure who ate meat, excepting Shirdi Sai Baba.
I haven’t had a chance to read through all the comments yet, but I have a few questions:
For #75 and #78, what does eating meat and LIKING veggies have anything to do with it? No one is saying that meat eaters don’t like veggies are they? People just complain about the meat eating part of your diet.
Also, for all the vegetarians out there who condemn the killing of animals, do you all wear or buy leather products? silk? where do you draw the line? If you are concerned about the treatment of the animals, especially here in America, shouldn’t you become vegan? (I know it’s easier said than done)
Hmmm, why is Sathya Sai Baba missing from your list? He is by far the most significant spiritual guide India has seen in ages, perhaps since the Buddha himself. And he has probably led more millions worldwide to vegetarianism within his lifetime than anyone else.
Thanks, Amitabh. My mom cooked kofta (copied from a Northie recipe) with cabbage. So, I didn’t know that kofte are meat until senior year in college. Always thought it was veggie. :-), that’s why my middle name is Igno-raman. Kheema too, you’re right, is an exception.
Q: What is Jain chicken? A: Chicken without onion.
No the correct answer is : Chicken who has been completely vegeterian.
131
As far as I can tell no one in this thread has taken an evangelising role in promoting vegetarianism. Food habits and lifestyles are personal choices colored by the environment one grew in and it is a continuum. Different people draw the line at different places. Modern society has drawn the line at cannibalism. Most people draw the line on some kinds of meat as OK and not others. Eg: For Americans cows are OK but not dogs, cats and horses. For the French the horses are just fine. For Koreans and Chinese the dogs are fine as well. For many vegetarians not eating anything involving killing is the norm. Some have extended it to excldue milk and any other animal products. As you said it is hard to go against societal norms, so it is upto the individual to draw the line wherever they are willing and able.
Post 119 truthseeker,
Ok so you agree that the primary Hindu scriptures advocate ahinsa. People are always misled and taken advantage of by those who misinterpret the scriptures for their own advantages. Even before the british got to gujarat in the 18th century the practices of animal scarifices and widow burning were being abolished by Bhagwan Swaminarayan. The british acknowledged the fact that their job was easier because of the influence of Bhagwan Swaminarayan over the people of gujarat, especially the likes of the notorious kathis. That work is being continued by Pramukh Swami Maharaj. THis is the reason you see gujarat with most vegetarians.
Gujaratis and Marwaris are vegetarian due to Jain influences on the Vaishnavism they traditionally follow. Swaminarayan devotees didn’t really become prevalent till very recently.
Animal sacrifice was more of a shakti worship thing probably most prevalent in the North East (Kalighat).
There are not that many vedic literalists around. Most hindu reformists sects including Vivekananda’s Santana Dharma claim to be ‘rooted’ in the Vedas not directly based on them. Then there are nastik sects that reject the Vedas completely.
Secondly very few Hindus sacrifice animals, most of these are regional tribal traditions that are rapidly disappering due to mainstream Hindu and Christian evangalization.
Animal sacrifice is fairly common in a lot of places, not just the east or northeast. It is not just related to shakthi worship alone although that is more widespread. Sacrifice is a concept that is still very prevalent in Indian traditions and for those with an agrarian background (~60% of India) sacrifice involves making offerings of their wealth and food, which is produce and goat and chicken and some cases liquor. Whatever it is that one consumes, one can offer it symbolically and ritually to the various dieties before consuming. So for example most villages in Tamil Nadu and Kerala and most likely Andhra and Karnataka have village gods that accept goat and chicken as offerings. Especially Mariamman temples and various other versions of Ammans. The priests are not Brahmins usually and they get a part of the goat or chicken, while the rest is consumed by the worshiping family as a feast. It may be uncommon in some parts of urban India, but is most definitely NOT disappearing! All you have to do is visit any Mariamman temple in Tamil Nadu, Sri Lamka, Malaysia or Singapore. I myself have often seen this rituals during great festivities in my ancestral village. A few examples from the internet follow.
Muthappan temple
When gods accept whisky
Temple overflows with liquor on Ashthami
From: http://www.bolokids.com/2006/0297.htm
Should we ban animal sacrifice in temples?
Sacrifice Lost and Found–Colonial India and Postcolonial Lanka
Just google for more.
I posted in #41.
I was just flipping through the photoessay once again and thought I’d share this. Read on.
Page 80 – Top panel
Page 80 – Bottom panel
risible, I can’t think of a single major figure who ate meat, excepting Shirdi Sai Baba. Ah! I was just saying, you know, that eating meat does not make you less of a Hindu. As you correctly point out, there have always been exceptions.
There was a Thai restaurant, and this is back in the bad ol’ eighties before the Internet, that I went to for almost three years until I discovered that they had fish sauce in even the veggie food (and I don’t eat fish). Might sound familiar to some.
It’s a start.
Risible:
You listed Vivekananda as an advocate of vegetarianism, but in fact i0ve found in his works that he actually was advocating meet eating to Indians saying that as now they are too week an so need more rajas etc and that he himself was eating meet before becoming a sannyasin (when that is prohibited). Not an example for vegetarianism (as well as Ramakrishna or other major disciple Swami Brahmananda (Rakhal) who used to go fishing all his life I think.. )
My salutations to all those who are the worshippers of saiva neri, which only would lead to understanding of true love. Any person who follows this neri, was worshipped by all the living beings/animals, as explained in Deiva Thirukkural, by its author Saint Thiruvalluvar, before 2000 years ago. Even after that, even though there are so many thirukkural mandrangal are existing, they are least bothered to propogate the importance of suddha saiva neri–Arulaatchi Aanggillai oon thinbarku, these words have been not given importance by the members of mandrangal through out the world. A revolution to the society before 2000 years could also be seen from the siddar paadalgal, for the upliftment of human race to reach eternal kingdom, through love. Love, Love, Love every living this, which only would lead you to the kingdom of GOD. Vaazhga Dayavudan. Adiyen, VR Jayaram Ramanujam.
Guruvarya, I will ask one question send me the answer on my e-mail is ysunilysunil@yahoo.com.in 1)Desires should be done what power shirdi sai baba will use what is that power name? 2)Desires should be done what power they will tell what is that power name?