philosoraptor
03 August 2013, 11:34 PM
This is a continuation of a response to the Swami Vivekananda thread when the subject diverted from there into the issue of vegetarianism. Sahasranama made some unwarranted criticisms of "medieval" Vaishnavas and suggested that they were somehow less authentic due to endorsing vegetarianism. I was ready to post this when the thread suddenly closed. I am therefore posting it here since I have tried analyze this issue with reference to explicit shAstric-pramANa-s.
I am sorry I stepped on your toes talking about Srivaishnavas.
I don't have a problem with you "talking" about Sri Vaishnavas, or even about criticizing them, or any other Vaishnavas for that matter. However, it would be nice if you took the time to inform yourself of their actual views, instead of knocking down strawmen. It's easier to have an intelligent discussion when you base your arguments on factual data. So far as I can see, this whole tirade against Sri Vaishnavas has nothing to do with anything written by their acharyas, but is solely based on Viraja making comments about meat-eating and Hinduism, and being a Sri Vaishnava by birth.
Seriously what are you going on about? Viraja made some statements about Srivaishnavas and I gave arguments why Srivaishnava custom is not always in line with Hinduism in general.
Because your argument is illogical and self-serving. There is no "Hindu" custom that is "always in line with Hinduism in general," because "Hinduism" is a broad term encompassing many different, distinct, and contradictory traditions and world-views. As such, you could theoretically criticize any Hindu who prescribes any religious vow, moral principle, etc that some other Hindu does not follow. But so far as I can see, you've only selectively applied the logic to "medieval" Vedantins, Vaishnavas, and post-18th-century Neo-Hindus.
In a previous posting, you argued that Sri Vaishnava brahmins are far-removed from the ancient priests who sacrificed animals, as if the desire to participate in such a practice is somehow a marker of authenticity. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are referring only to authentic Vedic yagnas performed only by authentic brahmins. Still, your argument is not well founded in shAstra. In gItA 2.42-46, Sri Krishna criticizes the mentality of the fruitive ritualist who fails to understand the ultimate, transcendental purpose behind the Vedic sacrifices, and advises Arjuna to rise beyond the most superficial understanding of the Vedas as pertaining to the three guNa-s (trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna / nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-kṣema ātmavān //). He then goes on to tell Arjuna "yāvān artha uda-pāne sarvataḥ samplutodake / tāvān sarveṣu vedeṣu brāhmaṇasya vijānataḥ//" - endorsing the view that a knower of the veda can understand their true purpose, just as a great body of water can serve the purpose of a smaller one. Every interpretation I have seen of 2.46 leads to the conclusion that not everything in the veda-s is meant for everyone, since some Vedic sacrifices have more materialistic ends in mind, and a true knower of the Veda knows which parts are to be followed by whom. Thus, it is not correct to argue that participation in animal-yagnas is a marker for Vedic authenticity.
Moreover, the bhAgavata purANa describes the grisly fate that was to befall King Praachiinabarhishat who had performed animal sacrifices:
nārada uvāca
bhoḥ bhoḥ prajāpate rājan paśūn paśya tvayādhvare |
saṁjñāpitāñ jīva-saṅghān nirghṛṇena sahasraśaḥ || bhA 4.25.7 ||
ete tvāṁ sampratīkṣante smaranto vaiśasaṁ tava |
samparetam ayaḥ-kūṭaiś chindanty utthita-manyavaḥ || bhA 4.25.8 ||
SB 4.25.7 — The great saint Nārada said: O ruler of the citizens, my dear King, please see in the sky those animals which you have sacrificed without compassion and without mercy in the sacrificial arena.
SB 4.25.8 — All these animals are awaiting your death so that they can avenge the injuries you have inflicted upon them. After you die, they will angrily pierce your body with iron horns.
It sounds to me like abstaining from animal sacrifices is perfectly in line with what at least some purANa-s teach, wouldn't you say? Didn't you also say that the itihAsa/purANa-s give us a picture of what "true Hindus" are supposed to believe in?
Because on the subject of eating meat, there are plenty of negative references therein also. For example, in rAmAyaNa 1.30.15, rAma refers to the demons marIcha and subAhu as flesh-eaters (राक्षसान् पिशित अशनान् |). It is later stated that rAkShasa-s are addicted to meat-eating (rAmAyaNa 5.17.9-18, 6.60.63). In the same text (VR 2.75.38) Bharata mentions the sinful nature of nourishing people with meat:
लाक्षया मधुमांसेन लोहेन च विषेण च |
सदैव बिभृयाद्भृत्यान् यस्यार्योऽसुमते गतः || २-७५-३८
38. (May he)yasya = with whose; anumate = counsel; aaryaH = my elder brother; gataH = has gone to exile; obtain sin) bibhR^iyaat = of nurturing; sadaiva = always; bhR^ityaan = one's wife; children; and other dependents; through sale; laakshhayaa = of lacquer; madhumaamsena = liquor; and flesh; lohena = iron; vishheNa = and poison.
"May he with whose counsel my elder brother has gone to exile, obtain, tat= the sin of nurturing his wife children and other dependents through sale of lacquer, liquor, flesh, iron or poison."
There is also another reference to the sinful nature of meat-eating in VR 7.65.27-28.
The text also mentions the impurity of blood/flesh:
व्रते मे बहुशः चीर्णे समाप्त्याम् राक्षसाविमौ |
मारीचः च सुबाहुः च वीर्यवन्तौ सुशिक्षितौ || १-१९-५
तौ मांस रुधिर ओघेण वेदिम् ताम् अभ्यवर्षताम् |
5, 6a. bahushaH chiirNe me vraate = almost, completed, in my, ritual; samaaptyaam = at its completion, near end; viiryavantau = valiant ones; su sikshitau = well, trained ones; raakshasaa = demons; maariichaH cha = Mareecha, and; subaahuH cha = Subaahu, also; tau = they two; maamsa rudhira ogheNa = with meat, blood, streams; taam vedim vimau = that, Altar of Fire, from sky; abhya varSataamoverall = they rain [they drench.]
"At the near end of almost completed ritual of mine two valiant and well-trained demons, namely Mareecha and Subaahu, are drenching the Altar of Fire with streams of meat and blood, from the sky. [1-19-5, 6a]
अवधूते तथा भूते तस्मिन् नियम निश्चये || १-१९-६
कृत श्रमो निरुत्साहः तस्मात् देशात् अपाक्रमे |
6b, 7a. tasmin niyama nishchaye = that, ritual, vow; avadhuute = upheaved - ravaged; tathaa bhuute = thus, on becoming; kR^ita shramaH = I who made, an exertion of myself; nir utsaahaH = [am becoming] without, enthusiasm - unenthusiastic; tasmaat deshaat apaakrame = from that, place, departing from.
"When the ritual vow is thus ravaged I, as the one who exerted myself for the ritual, had to depart from that place, unenthusiastically. [1-19-6n, 7a]
Does this make sense to you, so far, Sahasranama? Vishvamitra is complaining that the demons pollute his sacrifice with meat and blood, and you are arguing that no Hindu should have any problem at all with meat.
The varAha purANa 203.12-13 describes punishments for people who sell meat.
The bhAgavata purANa elsewhere condemns the practice of killing animals:
hanyante paśavo yatra nirdayair ajitātmabhiḥ |
manyamānair imaṁ deham ajarāmṛtyu naśvaram || bhA 10.10.9 ||
evaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ deham avyakta-prabhavāpyayam |
ko vidvān ātmasāt kṛtvā hanti jantūn ṛte ’sataḥ || bhA 10.10.12 ||
and
dravya-yajñair yakṣyamāṇaṁ dṛṣṭvā bhūtāni bibhyati |
eṣa mākaruṇo hanyād ataj-jño hy asu-tṛp dhruvam || bhA 7.15.10 ||
Upon seeing the person engaged in performing the sacrifice, animals meant to be sacrificed are extremely afraid, thinking, “This merciless performer of sacrifices, being ignorant of the purpose of sacrifice and being most satisfied by killing others, will surely kill us.”
Moreover, the same bhAgavatam states that animal-sacrifices are meant to regulate the killing, not encourage more of it:
tīrtheṣu pratidṛṣṭeṣu rājā medhyān paśūn vane |
yāvad-artham alaṁ lubdho hanyād iti niyamyate || bhA 4.26.6 ||
If a king is too attracted to eating flesh, he may, according to the directions of the revealed scriptures on sacrificial performances, go to the forest and kill some animals that are recommended for killing. One is not allowed to kill animals unnecessarily or without restrictions. The Vedas regulate animal-killing to stop the extravagance of foolish men influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance.
So far, it seems to me that discouraging meat-eating is well within the realm of acceptable practice for those following itihAsa/purANa, wouldn't you say?
Do you criticize non-vegetarian Hindus who advocate freedom to eat meat as aggressively as you criticize "sectarian" and "medieval" Vaishnava groups who advocate vegetarianism? Because you held the itihAsa/purANa as the standard of "true Hinduism," and I have clearly shown you the unequivocal basis therein for discouraging meat-eating.
First of all, I have no disdain for Srivaishnavas. What I am talking about here are the south Indian Vedanta schools which were started by south Indian village brahmins (Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva) and have become overrated as benchmarks to measure traditional Hinduism, especially on this forum.
Right, nothing disdainful at all about that comment.
An unbiased reader will come to a different conclusion than someone who has sectarian predisposition.
And what sect would that be? I told you before that I was born a smArtha and that I continue to study different points of view within Hinduism. From whence comes this hubris that your view is the non-sectarian one? I gave you the logic for interpreting the rAmAyaNa references in a vegetarian sense, and also gave supporting evidence from two other purANa-s which you claimed to accept as authoritative. It seems to me, as before, that your remarks are motivated by sectarianism rather than by balanced, level-headed thinking.
Again your logic fails. To make a statements being appalled by meat eating, means you are appalled by all meat eaters in general.
It actually does not, since the veda-s do allow for meat-eating within the context of yagna.
Preaching the merits of vegetarianism is one thing, saying that meat eating is non-Hindu is another.
Sahasranama, if you can come up with the explicit words and name of the "medieval" acharya who has written that meat-eating is "non-Hindu," then I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?
Gandhi's napunsakata caused more harm than was spared with his pseudo non violence. If the passive aggressive "non violence" of one person causes the harm of thousands of innocent Hindus, that non violent person needs to be taken care of.
For a person who trumpets his views as "Hindu," you endorse some violent and unforgiving atittudes that are very "non-Hindu," as per the standard (of fidelity to itihAsa/purANa) that you have given.
The bhAgavata purANa 8.7.44 equates the bearing of another's suffering with worship of Lord Vishnu. It states that only the compassionate can attain Vaikuntha (4.12.36-37), and prescribes an attitude of compassion for all living entities (3.29.21, 3.29.34) as does the viShNu purANa 3.8.35-37. The rAmAyaNa 2.116.8 describes compassion as the highest virtue and again prescribes compassion even for the greatest of sinners (6.113.43-46). These later shlokas were spoken by sItA-devI in regards to rAvaNa and his minions. No one doubts the evil of rAvaNa, or the terrible ways in which he terrorized sItA. Nevertheless, this noble lady said:
पापानां वा शुभानां वा वधार्हाणां प्लवङ्गम ||६-११३-४६
कार्यं कारुण्यमार्येण न कश्चिन्नापराध्यति |
46. kaaruNyam = kindness; kaaryam = is to be shown; aaryeNa = by a noble person; paapaanaam vaa = either towards a sinner; shubhaanaam vaa = or a virtuous person; athaapivaa = or even; vadhaarhaaNaam = to person deserving to be killed; na kashchit = (for) There is none; naaparaadhyati iti na = who never commits a wrong.
"Kindness is to be shown by a noble person either towards a sinner or to a virtuous person or even to a person who deserves death, for, there is none who never commits a wrong."
लोकहिंसाविहाराणां रक्षसां कामरूपिणम् ||६-११३-४७
कुर्वतामपि पापानि नैव कार्यमशोभनम् |
47. ashobhanam = evil; kaaryam = act; na kaaryam = is not to be done; paapani kurvataamapi = even to those who do evil-deeds; loka himsaavihaaraaNaam = in taking pleasure to harm people; kruuraaNaam = the cruel ones; paapakarmaNaam = who do evil deeds.
"No evil is to be done, even to those cruel persons of sinful deeds, who take pleasure to harm the life of others and continue to perpetrate their sinful acts."
These verses are very clear, and they preclude the cheering on of another person's execution, no matter how misguided that person was.
I don't care for Gandhi's politics or his philosophy, but if the itihAsa/purANa is truly the authority on "Hinduism" as you claim, then your attitudes about endorsing Gandhi's execution are very un-Hindu to say the least.
I am sorry I stepped on your toes talking about Srivaishnavas.
I don't have a problem with you "talking" about Sri Vaishnavas, or even about criticizing them, or any other Vaishnavas for that matter. However, it would be nice if you took the time to inform yourself of their actual views, instead of knocking down strawmen. It's easier to have an intelligent discussion when you base your arguments on factual data. So far as I can see, this whole tirade against Sri Vaishnavas has nothing to do with anything written by their acharyas, but is solely based on Viraja making comments about meat-eating and Hinduism, and being a Sri Vaishnava by birth.
Seriously what are you going on about? Viraja made some statements about Srivaishnavas and I gave arguments why Srivaishnava custom is not always in line with Hinduism in general.
Because your argument is illogical and self-serving. There is no "Hindu" custom that is "always in line with Hinduism in general," because "Hinduism" is a broad term encompassing many different, distinct, and contradictory traditions and world-views. As such, you could theoretically criticize any Hindu who prescribes any religious vow, moral principle, etc that some other Hindu does not follow. But so far as I can see, you've only selectively applied the logic to "medieval" Vedantins, Vaishnavas, and post-18th-century Neo-Hindus.
In a previous posting, you argued that Sri Vaishnava brahmins are far-removed from the ancient priests who sacrificed animals, as if the desire to participate in such a practice is somehow a marker of authenticity. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are referring only to authentic Vedic yagnas performed only by authentic brahmins. Still, your argument is not well founded in shAstra. In gItA 2.42-46, Sri Krishna criticizes the mentality of the fruitive ritualist who fails to understand the ultimate, transcendental purpose behind the Vedic sacrifices, and advises Arjuna to rise beyond the most superficial understanding of the Vedas as pertaining to the three guNa-s (trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna / nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-kṣema ātmavān //). He then goes on to tell Arjuna "yāvān artha uda-pāne sarvataḥ samplutodake / tāvān sarveṣu vedeṣu brāhmaṇasya vijānataḥ//" - endorsing the view that a knower of the veda can understand their true purpose, just as a great body of water can serve the purpose of a smaller one. Every interpretation I have seen of 2.46 leads to the conclusion that not everything in the veda-s is meant for everyone, since some Vedic sacrifices have more materialistic ends in mind, and a true knower of the Veda knows which parts are to be followed by whom. Thus, it is not correct to argue that participation in animal-yagnas is a marker for Vedic authenticity.
Moreover, the bhAgavata purANa describes the grisly fate that was to befall King Praachiinabarhishat who had performed animal sacrifices:
nārada uvāca
bhoḥ bhoḥ prajāpate rājan paśūn paśya tvayādhvare |
saṁjñāpitāñ jīva-saṅghān nirghṛṇena sahasraśaḥ || bhA 4.25.7 ||
ete tvāṁ sampratīkṣante smaranto vaiśasaṁ tava |
samparetam ayaḥ-kūṭaiś chindanty utthita-manyavaḥ || bhA 4.25.8 ||
SB 4.25.7 — The great saint Nārada said: O ruler of the citizens, my dear King, please see in the sky those animals which you have sacrificed without compassion and without mercy in the sacrificial arena.
SB 4.25.8 — All these animals are awaiting your death so that they can avenge the injuries you have inflicted upon them. After you die, they will angrily pierce your body with iron horns.
It sounds to me like abstaining from animal sacrifices is perfectly in line with what at least some purANa-s teach, wouldn't you say? Didn't you also say that the itihAsa/purANa-s give us a picture of what "true Hindus" are supposed to believe in?
Because on the subject of eating meat, there are plenty of negative references therein also. For example, in rAmAyaNa 1.30.15, rAma refers to the demons marIcha and subAhu as flesh-eaters (राक्षसान् पिशित अशनान् |). It is later stated that rAkShasa-s are addicted to meat-eating (rAmAyaNa 5.17.9-18, 6.60.63). In the same text (VR 2.75.38) Bharata mentions the sinful nature of nourishing people with meat:
लाक्षया मधुमांसेन लोहेन च विषेण च |
सदैव बिभृयाद्भृत्यान् यस्यार्योऽसुमते गतः || २-७५-३८
38. (May he)yasya = with whose; anumate = counsel; aaryaH = my elder brother; gataH = has gone to exile; obtain sin) bibhR^iyaat = of nurturing; sadaiva = always; bhR^ityaan = one's wife; children; and other dependents; through sale; laakshhayaa = of lacquer; madhumaamsena = liquor; and flesh; lohena = iron; vishheNa = and poison.
"May he with whose counsel my elder brother has gone to exile, obtain, tat= the sin of nurturing his wife children and other dependents through sale of lacquer, liquor, flesh, iron or poison."
There is also another reference to the sinful nature of meat-eating in VR 7.65.27-28.
The text also mentions the impurity of blood/flesh:
व्रते मे बहुशः चीर्णे समाप्त्याम् राक्षसाविमौ |
मारीचः च सुबाहुः च वीर्यवन्तौ सुशिक्षितौ || १-१९-५
तौ मांस रुधिर ओघेण वेदिम् ताम् अभ्यवर्षताम् |
5, 6a. bahushaH chiirNe me vraate = almost, completed, in my, ritual; samaaptyaam = at its completion, near end; viiryavantau = valiant ones; su sikshitau = well, trained ones; raakshasaa = demons; maariichaH cha = Mareecha, and; subaahuH cha = Subaahu, also; tau = they two; maamsa rudhira ogheNa = with meat, blood, streams; taam vedim vimau = that, Altar of Fire, from sky; abhya varSataamoverall = they rain [they drench.]
"At the near end of almost completed ritual of mine two valiant and well-trained demons, namely Mareecha and Subaahu, are drenching the Altar of Fire with streams of meat and blood, from the sky. [1-19-5, 6a]
अवधूते तथा भूते तस्मिन् नियम निश्चये || १-१९-६
कृत श्रमो निरुत्साहः तस्मात् देशात् अपाक्रमे |
6b, 7a. tasmin niyama nishchaye = that, ritual, vow; avadhuute = upheaved - ravaged; tathaa bhuute = thus, on becoming; kR^ita shramaH = I who made, an exertion of myself; nir utsaahaH = [am becoming] without, enthusiasm - unenthusiastic; tasmaat deshaat apaakrame = from that, place, departing from.
"When the ritual vow is thus ravaged I, as the one who exerted myself for the ritual, had to depart from that place, unenthusiastically. [1-19-6n, 7a]
Does this make sense to you, so far, Sahasranama? Vishvamitra is complaining that the demons pollute his sacrifice with meat and blood, and you are arguing that no Hindu should have any problem at all with meat.
The varAha purANa 203.12-13 describes punishments for people who sell meat.
The bhAgavata purANa elsewhere condemns the practice of killing animals:
hanyante paśavo yatra nirdayair ajitātmabhiḥ |
manyamānair imaṁ deham ajarāmṛtyu naśvaram || bhA 10.10.9 ||
evaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ deham avyakta-prabhavāpyayam |
ko vidvān ātmasāt kṛtvā hanti jantūn ṛte ’sataḥ || bhA 10.10.12 ||
and
dravya-yajñair yakṣyamāṇaṁ dṛṣṭvā bhūtāni bibhyati |
eṣa mākaruṇo hanyād ataj-jño hy asu-tṛp dhruvam || bhA 7.15.10 ||
Upon seeing the person engaged in performing the sacrifice, animals meant to be sacrificed are extremely afraid, thinking, “This merciless performer of sacrifices, being ignorant of the purpose of sacrifice and being most satisfied by killing others, will surely kill us.”
Moreover, the same bhAgavatam states that animal-sacrifices are meant to regulate the killing, not encourage more of it:
tīrtheṣu pratidṛṣṭeṣu rājā medhyān paśūn vane |
yāvad-artham alaṁ lubdho hanyād iti niyamyate || bhA 4.26.6 ||
If a king is too attracted to eating flesh, he may, according to the directions of the revealed scriptures on sacrificial performances, go to the forest and kill some animals that are recommended for killing. One is not allowed to kill animals unnecessarily or without restrictions. The Vedas regulate animal-killing to stop the extravagance of foolish men influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance.
So far, it seems to me that discouraging meat-eating is well within the realm of acceptable practice for those following itihAsa/purANa, wouldn't you say?
Do you criticize non-vegetarian Hindus who advocate freedom to eat meat as aggressively as you criticize "sectarian" and "medieval" Vaishnava groups who advocate vegetarianism? Because you held the itihAsa/purANa as the standard of "true Hinduism," and I have clearly shown you the unequivocal basis therein for discouraging meat-eating.
First of all, I have no disdain for Srivaishnavas. What I am talking about here are the south Indian Vedanta schools which were started by south Indian village brahmins (Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva) and have become overrated as benchmarks to measure traditional Hinduism, especially on this forum.
Right, nothing disdainful at all about that comment.
An unbiased reader will come to a different conclusion than someone who has sectarian predisposition.
And what sect would that be? I told you before that I was born a smArtha and that I continue to study different points of view within Hinduism. From whence comes this hubris that your view is the non-sectarian one? I gave you the logic for interpreting the rAmAyaNa references in a vegetarian sense, and also gave supporting evidence from two other purANa-s which you claimed to accept as authoritative. It seems to me, as before, that your remarks are motivated by sectarianism rather than by balanced, level-headed thinking.
Again your logic fails. To make a statements being appalled by meat eating, means you are appalled by all meat eaters in general.
It actually does not, since the veda-s do allow for meat-eating within the context of yagna.
Preaching the merits of vegetarianism is one thing, saying that meat eating is non-Hindu is another.
Sahasranama, if you can come up with the explicit words and name of the "medieval" acharya who has written that meat-eating is "non-Hindu," then I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?
Gandhi's napunsakata caused more harm than was spared with his pseudo non violence. If the passive aggressive "non violence" of one person causes the harm of thousands of innocent Hindus, that non violent person needs to be taken care of.
For a person who trumpets his views as "Hindu," you endorse some violent and unforgiving atittudes that are very "non-Hindu," as per the standard (of fidelity to itihAsa/purANa) that you have given.
The bhAgavata purANa 8.7.44 equates the bearing of another's suffering with worship of Lord Vishnu. It states that only the compassionate can attain Vaikuntha (4.12.36-37), and prescribes an attitude of compassion for all living entities (3.29.21, 3.29.34) as does the viShNu purANa 3.8.35-37. The rAmAyaNa 2.116.8 describes compassion as the highest virtue and again prescribes compassion even for the greatest of sinners (6.113.43-46). These later shlokas were spoken by sItA-devI in regards to rAvaNa and his minions. No one doubts the evil of rAvaNa, or the terrible ways in which he terrorized sItA. Nevertheless, this noble lady said:
पापानां वा शुभानां वा वधार्हाणां प्लवङ्गम ||६-११३-४६
कार्यं कारुण्यमार्येण न कश्चिन्नापराध्यति |
46. kaaruNyam = kindness; kaaryam = is to be shown; aaryeNa = by a noble person; paapaanaam vaa = either towards a sinner; shubhaanaam vaa = or a virtuous person; athaapivaa = or even; vadhaarhaaNaam = to person deserving to be killed; na kashchit = (for) There is none; naaparaadhyati iti na = who never commits a wrong.
"Kindness is to be shown by a noble person either towards a sinner or to a virtuous person or even to a person who deserves death, for, there is none who never commits a wrong."
लोकहिंसाविहाराणां रक्षसां कामरूपिणम् ||६-११३-४७
कुर्वतामपि पापानि नैव कार्यमशोभनम् |
47. ashobhanam = evil; kaaryam = act; na kaaryam = is not to be done; paapani kurvataamapi = even to those who do evil-deeds; loka himsaavihaaraaNaam = in taking pleasure to harm people; kruuraaNaam = the cruel ones; paapakarmaNaam = who do evil deeds.
"No evil is to be done, even to those cruel persons of sinful deeds, who take pleasure to harm the life of others and continue to perpetrate their sinful acts."
These verses are very clear, and they preclude the cheering on of another person's execution, no matter how misguided that person was.
I don't care for Gandhi's politics or his philosophy, but if the itihAsa/purANa is truly the authority on "Hinduism" as you claim, then your attitudes about endorsing Gandhi's execution are very un-Hindu to say the least.