Author | Topic: Did Rama eat Meat? |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:00 AM
The other thread was too long, and the subject was misleading, so I am posting this under a new heading. Later, when I get time, I will transfer some of the relevant messages posted by different people in the other thread. |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:02 AM
quote: There are mention of various sacrifices that involve the consumption of animal flesh by the brahmana priests and the king. The aswa-medha yajna is one example, but the same scriptures which describe this yajna also say it is forbidden to be performed in Kali yuga. In Vedic yajnas the animal was not 'killed', but was elevated to a higher body. This was done to prove the efficacy of the brahmanas and the mantras they were chanting. The king was sacrificing huge quantities of gold and other valuables into the fire, and he needed some guarantee that it was actually being delivered to the gods, and not just being burnt up. For this purpose, the brahmana priests would physically demonstrate the efficacy of their mantras by transforming the animal into a gandharva. A horse would enter the fire, and a Gandharva (a heavenly human species) would emerge form the fire. The soul of the horse would be given a higher birth, and it was seen directly by the king. There still remained the karma of the horse to be accounted for. That horse was destined to traverse through many lives before he attained the body of the andharva, so that karma needed to be ballanced. All of those karmic reactions, existing between the horse body and the gandharva body, would remain in the flesh of the horses dead body. It was the duty of the king and the brahmanas to eat that flesh, and there by accept all of the karmic reactions within it. It is described that after eating this flesh, the brahmanas would lose their tejas and no longer be able to perform sacrifice. They would have to perform severe tapasya (austerities) in order to regain their tejas and shakti. The king would likewise have to give his entire wealth away in charity as a means to regain his tejas. Thus the king and brahmanas eating of flesh in the sacrifice was not an enjoyment, but a sacrifice they had to accept. quote: Perhaps you can locate some valid references, and I will check the verses to verify them. My understanding is that the Valmiki Ramayana does not say Rama ate meat, but another later Ramayana does. I know the Indonesian version of Ramayana says this, but that isn't surprising since they are not vegetarians.
|
shvu Member |
posted 07-13-2001 12:07 AM
quote: In the Sundara Kanda, the 36th sarga, the 41st sloka describes how Hanuman tells Sita, " When you were away, Sri Rama refrained from eating deer meat." This is the reference that I have, albeit not verified by me. Perhaps someone who has access to the Valmiki Ramayana can verify this. Cheers |
shvu Member |
posted 07-13-2001 12:14 AM
Note from jndas: Parts relevant only to the other thread (on McDonald's) has been removed for clarity. You can see the original on that thread.
quote: How about a sample? If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son. -Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 And this was at a time, when the Veda was limited to the circle of Brahmanas only. With due respect, it takes more than iskcon books to learn about ancient India. Viewing everything from behind Gaudiya tinted glasses just does not cut it. Cheers [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).] |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 12:19 AM
Sruti authority cannot be denied by those who supposedly are defending sanatana-dharma's precepts, as the case of Harekrsnas. Shvuji has clear pointed out the sruti opinion regarding to eat bovine meat. He has quoted Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 as a sound proof that sruti allows even brahmanis to eat this kind of flesh. Besides that quote by Shvuji, we should add the following instructions given by sruti regarding the same issue: 1. Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single-colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by fervor - vouchsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. Another hymn (RV: X.16.7) mentions the ritual enveloping of the corpse with cow flesh before applying the fire on it. 2. In the Brahmanas at 1.15 in the Aiteriya Brahmana, the kindling of Agni on the arrival of King Some is compared to the slaughter of a bull or a barren cow on the arrival of a human king or other dignitary. 3. Similarly, at II.1.11.1 in the Taiteriya Brahmana and XXXI.14.5 in the Panchavinsha Brahmana, the rishi Agastya is credited with the slaughter of a hundred bulls. 4. In verse III.1.2.21 in the Satapatha Brahmana, sage Yajnavalkaya asserts that even though the cow is the supporter of everyone, he would eat beef "if it is luscious." At IV.5-2.1 in the same Brahmana, it is said that a barren cow can be slaughtered in the some sacrifice. Not only for religious purposes, but also for other purposes one could kill a cow and eat beef. Thus at II.4.2 of the same Brahmana, it is suggested that a fat bull or fat goat should be sacrificed in honor of an important guest. 5. Brihadaranyaka Upanishada (VI.4.18) advises a couple to take an evening meal of beef or veal pulao, if they desire to beget a son who is learned in the Vedas [Robert Trumbull, As I see India, London, 1957, p. 241]. Smrti texts should always follows sruti assertive and never deny them. Manu smrti is to be considered the main dharma-sastra in this regard, and Manu-smrti clear states that no one is to be considered an inhabitant of hell simply because he eats meat, or he drinks wine. There are special conditions to be accepted as dharmics while eating meat and drinking wine. Another smrti text, the Bhagavata Purana also mention that some kind of meat should always be considered as dharmic, even in Kali-yuga (9.6.7) . Another important smrti text, the Vaisnava dharmasastra from Visnu-smrti (51.6) also says: "If a man has (unawares) eaten meat of a five-toed animal, with the exception of the hare, the porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros, and the tortoise, he must fast for seven days." And also itihasas says: 'Only five among the five-clawed creatures can be eaten by Brahmans and Ksatriyas, Raghava: the hedgehog, the porcupine, the lizard, the rabbit, and fifth, the turtle.' " -- Ramayana 4:17:34. We cannot find any clear injunction in these smrtis that bovine meat is to be considered impure, not proper to be taken and so on. Therefore, if Gaudiya-vaisnavas really want to have a serious discussion in this regard, they should present a sruti text clearly stating that bovine meat should not be eaten. Smrti texts that may deny the sruti assertive mentioned before should not be mentioned, as they are false inferences on
sruti. |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:22 AM
quote: If you had actually read any of the texts you had quoted, I would spend some time replying your statements. But that fact that you just did a search on the internet for "meat in hinduism", and copied a few quotes from a web site make me not value your input, at least not to the point of deserving a response. All the quotes you provided are available on a number of anti-hindu websites, along with the quotes from Ramayana (that never actually existed). In fact, the translations posted are word for word duplicates. This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. 'Serious' means taking books and studyinging, not spending 30 seconds doing a search on google to find a half-baked website that is about as scholary as the lint in my keyboard. If anyone is actually interested in the topic of gomedha-yajna I can suggest some books that deal solely with this topic. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 12:23 AM
This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure.(Jndas) This sruti text mentioned by Shvuji is from Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18, and the whole text also can be easily found in Hindu net sites, not in "anti-Hindu" web-sites. This text is not talking about a gomedha-yajña, but it is instructing on mundane dharma. It is saying; "one (even a brahmanin) should eat bovine meat to have a good son." There is no inference if the meat is coming from a gomedha-yajña or from any other origin in the text. This inference is yours. We had are also mentioned the book publishers of the other sruti texts posted and anyone can consult its authenticity, and Rg Veda is not actually a secret and rare text to be read.
|
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:25 AM
I said: quote: And Satyaraj replied quote: Please read the entire chapter. This text is speaking about different yajnas that may be performed for different results. Or maybe you thought that just by eating rice one will give birth to the perfect child?
quote: No, it doesn't say this. Go back to the google search and try again. Better yet, just read the entire chapter and not this single verse. You have a habit of coming to irrational conclusions based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and you often change directions very quickly. You should develop
quote: It is not infered it is directly stated in the text. Please read the chapter as I have requested. I am sorry, but I dont have time to type it out for you at the moment. Also note the section on how to kill one's wife's lover (if she had one). The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done. There are detailed explainations on how to steal another man's wife, how to kill and overthrow the king, how to utilize black magic against people, etc. This is why the Vedas are known as kalpa-taru, they are like a desire tree of knowledge. Whatever you want, they have that information in them. If you want to perform evil activities, or destructive activities, they will provide you guidance on that as well. But to think that the message of the vedas has anything to do with such activities is foolish. That is why there is Vedanta, 'the end of knowledge', which is the Upanishads. For spiritual progress one must take shelter of the message of the Upanishads. Actually, even the apparently materialistic texts (karma-khanda portions) of the Vedas have very deep spiritual instructions encoded within them. But for that one needs to know the code of the Vedas. Others will just see the external meanings, an apparent sacrifice or activity, which has more or less no spiritual value. To such people the secret of the Vedas remains locked. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).] |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:26 AM
Seeing how little effort was put into gathering quotes and context regarding the eating of meat in the scriptures, I choose to reply with an equally insincere effort. Here are some quotes from Hinduism Today. Those that know my personal judgment of Hinduism Today can understand how much respect I must have for the google search research done by some forum members. I wonder what Vallabhacharya said on this topic? Maybe he was eating cows like we are told the rest of the Rishis were doing? Anyway, on with Hinduism Today!
quote: [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).] |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:29 AM
To give a slightly more serious answer, the cow is known as 'aghnya', or that which can not be killed. In the Veda's samhitas (which are available today), this term is used to indicate cows over 70 times. Sometimes the word 'cow' is used to refer to products of the cow, such as milk, butter, ghee, yoghurt,etc. Thus there are some verses that apparently refer to the meat of a cow, which in reality do not refer to that at all. There is an authorized system of gomedha yajna in the vedas, but this also has little to do with killing a cow. Sripada Madhvacharya establishes this clearly in his commentaries to Srimad Bhagavatam as follows: yajneshv alabhanam proktam yato yajne mrita urdhvam The vedas describe certain sacrifices to God that involve the offering of animals, but such offerings are not himsa (violence). If animals are killed for any other purpose, without rigidly following the Vedic injunctions, such killing is violence and should not be accepted by any intelligent person. In the sacrifice, the animal is immediately promoted to the heavenly planets, and this is visibly seen by the participants, thereby demostrating the efficacy of vedic mantras. It is not the killing of an animal. This requires a proper study, and won't be learnt from the google search. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).] |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 12:39 AM
ye tv anevaM-vido 'santaH stabdhAh sad-abhimAninaH pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH pretya khAdanti te ca tAn "Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." Bhagavata Purana 11.5.15 |
Janus Member |
posted 07-13-2001 12:59 AM
"If somebody says that "I am a great devotee of Kali, goddess Kali," that is not bhakti; that is business. Because any demigod you worship, there is some purpose behind that. Generally, people take to become a devotee of goddess Kali for eating meat. That is their purpose. In the Vedic culture, those who are meat-eaters, they have been advised that "Don't eat meat purchased from the slaughterhouse or from the market." Actually, this system was never current anywhere, all over the world, that! to maintain slaughterhouse. This is latest invention. We talk with sometimes with Christian gentlemen, and when we inquire that "Lord Christ says 'Thou shalt not kill'; why you are killing?" they give evidence that "Christ also ate meat sometimes." Sometimes Christ ate meat, that's all right, but did Christ say that "You maintain big, big slaughterhouse and go on eating meat?" There is no common sense even. Christ might have eaten. Sometimes he... If there was no, nothing available for eating, what could you do? That is another question. In great necessity, when there is no other food except taking meat... That time is coming. In this age, Kali-yuga, gradually food grains will be reduced. It is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Twelfth Canto. No rice, no wheat, no milk, no sugar will be available. One has to eat meat. This will be the condition. And maybe to eat the human flesh also. This sinful life is degrading so much so that they will become more and more sinful. Tan aham dvisatah kruran ksipamy ajasram andhe-yonisu. Those who are demons, those who are sinful, nature's law is to place him in such condition that he will become more and more a demon so that he will never be able to understand what is God. This is nature's law. If you want to forget God, then God will put you in such a condition that you can never understand what is God. That is demonic life. That time is also coming. At the present moment, still a few men are interested, what is God. Arto artharti jijnasu jnani. But time is coming ahead when there will be no sense to understand God. That is the last stage of Kali-yuga, and at that time Kalki avatara, Kalki avatara will come. At that time there is no preaching of God consciousness, simply killing, simply killing." From a talk by ACBSP |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:00 AM
Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" posted by Satyaraj to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat:
quote: Why is it irrational? Because there is no such thing as a verse Ramayana 2:20. The Ramayana is divided into cantos, chapters, and verses; there needs to be three indicators to identify a verse. But you don't spend the 30 seconds to even look at a Ramayana, you just blindly take it as absolute authority. This verse is quoted on dozens of anti-hindu sites to prove that Rama ate meat. But it only convinces foolish people who have never read the scriptures. Like this there are around 10 or 20 other verses claimed to be from the Ramayana that in reality do not exist. Since most people won't take the time to verify, they feel they can just make up a verse and pass it off as authentic. To me, anyone who accepts such evidence without verifying it is coming to an irrational conclusion, more so if they then try to propagate such ignorance as truth. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:03 AM
Jay Rama Hari! Is there something different than Hari? A second Hari? No. Sruti vehemently deny this possibility. Imagine that Rama is hunting a deer. He kills a deer everyday and give it as a gift to His beloved father Dasaratha Maharaja. What Rama is killing? A second Hari? Something that is different than Himself? That's impossible. Rama is playing lila and His lila is inconceivable. Reasoning cannot follow it. Hari's 'modus operandi' is beyond our intellect. Now Dasaratha Maharaja is eating deer meat. It is something different than Hari? A second Hari? A deer killed by Rama as His sport is to be considered His prasada. Should Dasaratha avoid it? Dasaratha Maharaja doesn't eat without Rama's company. Rama for certain would take the same kind of meal as His father. Is Rama eating a second Hari? Something different than Himself? Rama eats because He wants to play lila. One should not imagine that Hari is hungry, or that He has some gastronomical preferences, as sruti states that He is atmarama and atmakama. He is self satisfied and always content. So why He is eating? He is eating to fulfill His own lila. To reciprocate love and affection with His beloved father and devotee Dasaratha Maharaja. So, He kills a dear (that is not a second Hari), gives it as a gift to His father (that is not a second Hari) and He eats with him to reciprocate love and affection. Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'?
|
Maitreya Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:05 AM
In this discussion of the Lord's eatting habits, let's not forget our place on the menu.
quote: |
Ananga Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:06 AM
JNDas: For what its worth: The Gita Press English edition of Ramayana describes at length of a sage that Ramachandra visits, who prepares a feast of all kinds of animal flesh. I believe they have never been an anti-Hindu publisher. |
Gauracandra Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:07 AM
quote: I'll fully admit I can not understand Hari's activities, [and I say this next part somewhat jokingly] especially since I couldn't understand what the point of your post was. Gauracandra |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:10 AM
quote: There are several editions of Ramayana that mention such things, but up till now I have not seen a version of Valmiki Ramayana that does, nor have I seen any traditional teacher state this (though they do say other unauthorized versions of Ramayana mention this). Valmiki Ramayana is the authorized depiction of Sri Rama's pastimes. Other versions are the works of various sadhus, some authentic, some not. If the story does not find a basis in Valmiki Ramayana, then its authenticity may be questioned. As to whether or not Rama ate meat, it is irrelevant, after all, he eats the universes. But the point is whether or not this statement is based on authority or speculation. Some of the people here like to speculate a lot about there being different varieties of Hari (the nondual Hari, the Puranic Hari, the shruti Hari, the deer Hari, the dirt Hari, etc.). When they are repeatedly shown to have provided false evidence (and to have not even read the scriptures they are quoting), rather than admit they are wrong or that they have made a mistake, they continue with their game by ignoring it and posting some mental speculation about spontaneous bhakti. Such shameless people really need to find a sadhu, for only a sadhu can guide us properly in the traditional study of shastra. Rather than relying on Munishwara such and such and his UNESCO printing press, better to find a guru. It won't be as easy as buying a book, but it is necessary for attaining Hari. Thats the instruction of Vallabha, and thats the instruction of every Vaishnava
acharya. |
animesh Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:11 AM
I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita, "The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics." But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat. Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this? |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:12 AM
To make things even more complicated, there are several versions of "Valmiki" Ramayana today, which are very different from each other. For example I quoted in a previous post the same verse you referred here, and it isn't spoken by Hanuman, and it has absolutely nothing to do with food at all. |
animesh Member |
posted 07-13-2001 01:13 AM
Ananga ji, I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh? |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:22 AM
Regarding the Gita Press edition, could you check if it is definitely Valmiki Ramayana, and if it mentions which recension this text is from. Another problem is that since Ramayana is universally known to have been authored by Valmiki, many books are popularly titled "Valmiki's Ramayana", when they are not actually from that text.
|
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:26 AM
The following references from the Valmiki Ramayana are provided by H.K. Susarla. It makes it quite clear that Rama did not eat meat. chaturdasha hi varShaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane | ka.mdamuulaphalairjiivan hitvaa munivadaamiSham || raa 2.20.29 || Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest, phalamulashanaa nitya.m bhaviShyaami na sa.mshayaH | na tu duHkha.m kaiShyaami nivasantii tvayaa sadaa || raa 2.27.16 || I shall without doubt live on fruits and roots (alone) from day to day and patra.m muula.m phala.m yattu alpa.m vaa yadi vaa bahu daasyase svayamaahutya tanme.mR^itarasopamam || raa 2.30.15 || Anything you will give (me) in the shape of leaves, roots or fruits, na maaturna pitustatra smariShyaami na veshmanaH | aartavaanyupabhu~njaanaa puShpaaNi cha phalaani cha || raa 2.30.16 || Enjoying there seasonal flowers and fruits too I shall neither remember my kushachiiraajinaghara.m phalamuulaashana.m cha maam | viddhi praNihita.m dharme taapasa.m vanagocharam || raa 2.50.44 || Know me as under a vow to wear (a zone of) Kusha grass, the bark of trees pitraa niyuktaa bhagavan prabeShyaamastapovanam | dharmamevaachariShyaamastatra mR^ilphalaashanaaH || raa 2.54.16 || Ordered by our father, O venerable sage, we shall retire to a forest suited naanaavighaanannarasaan vanyamuulaphalaashrayaan | tebhyo dadau taptatapaa vaasa.m chaivaabhyakalpayat || raa 2.54.18 || The sage (who had practised austerities) offered them delicacies of every |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:51 AM
Regarding the Gita Press edition of Ramayana, I am curious where they suggest the Rishis got the meat from? Were they walking with bows and hunting? Do they provide any further description? The rishis are instructed to live off of roots and certain fruits. There are even passages where a guru condemns his disciple for taking too much fruit from one tree, not thinking about the other animals that should eat from it! |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 03:35 AM
Jndas: Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" posted by Satyaraj to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat...[/b] Satyaraj: I had never made this post in Dharma-mela. This is from someone else. You can check it out with the administrator of mela. There is no necessity of passionate personal attacks while discussing these topics. Regarding your criticism that I use to diverge from the issue to speak on bhakti instead of dharma injunctions, this is only due my personal preference in discussions. Did your Guru was a karma-yoga instructor? |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 04:51 AM
Are you sure you didn't post that message on dharma mela? After all, it is nearly a word for word duplicate of the sixth message posted in this thread, which happens to be authored by you. So either it is your post, or you plagarized that post. And since you had a habit of leaving the [ b ] and [ /b ] commands in place when you copied messages from here and posted them on the dharma mela, and since that message on Dharma Mela has those same tell-tale signs of [ b ] and [ /b ] (when quoting a message from Shvu), i stand by my statement. The Dharma Mela is truly a mela. Anyone can post anything under the name of anybody. there is no security measure to stop someone from posting as someone else, so it is impossible to verrify who posted what. But by the symptoms of the post, the identity of the poster usually becomes clear. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you did just plagarize the post. Either way its nothing to be proud of. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 06:32 AM
Actually the post in mela had some interesting points, quoting some mantras from srutis, and I had accepted these evidences as a good enough to be discussed in these threads. Is this 'to plagiarize'? These ideas aren't actually my personal ideas, but some universal ideas from srutis to be understood and to be discussed in satsang. If my understand use to diverge from someone else's understanding, I cannot simply demonize my opponent by name calling and some malicious inferences on his character and conduct. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 07:02 AM
Now, some people wants to follow Ravana's footsteps. They want to limit Hari's activities by stating: "Oh, no! Rama has never eaten deer flesh! That is impossible!" They only want to limit Hari's activities according to their own limited understanding of mundane dharma, ethics, ahimsa, and so on. >>>Note from jndas: I accidentally erased the first paragrah of this when I hit edit instead of reply. If you remember what you said, please repost the first paragraph. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).] |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 07:54 AM
Ravana use to believe that Rama's activities could be limited. He would never imagine that Hari could bridge the ocean. But Hari's activities are not limited by anyone else's imagination, and Rama has bridged the ocean to Ravana's astonishment. Now, some people wants to follow Ravana's footsteps. They want to limit Hari's activities by stating: "Oh, no! Rama has never eaten deer flesh! That is impossible!" They only want to limit Hari's activities according to their own limited understanding of mundane dharma, ethics, ahimsa, and so on. Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'? Can see you how easy is to demonize someone? |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 08:53 AM
quote: Though this may be a popular opinion, this logic is childish. We can just as well ask if God has done any apparently stupid activity. For example: Has God poked the eyes out of his mother and father due to their great devotion? If we say no, then some populist would argue, "You only want to limit God's activities to your mundane dharma. God can do anything." The fact is, the only way to know about God is from what He tells us about Himself. And up till now, he hasn't told us that he has poked out the eyes of His mother. Therefore we shouldn't foolishly attribute such an action to God simply on the basis that he is omnipotent and capable of doing anything. The same is the case as to whether or not Ramachandra ate meat. No one is trying to limit God to mundane morals. The fact is no one has shown evidence that Rama ate meat, whereas we have shown ample evidence from Valmiki Ramayana that He did not eat meat. Now the populist answer would be that "you are trying to limit God to your mundane dharma", or translated into simple English, "I don't have any proof for my speculative statement, and therefore I will avoid posting evidence, and instead twist the subject by claiming others are trying to limit the omnipotent God." Such a line of debate is certainly revealing in that it highlights the lack of a solid stand from which to argue. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 09:21 AM
In fact I had read countless Ramayanas, including Valmiki's, Tulsidas, Adiatmikha-Ramayana, and smrtis on Ramayana. We had a Ramayana to translate into Portuguese 6 or 7years ago, and I was elected the translator. So, I had to choice which was the best one to translate according to a devotional mood. All Ramayanas state that Rama hunts deer as a sport during His youth. No one should expect that a ksatriya would hunt deer to any other reason besides to eat its flesh. Tulsidas makes some inferences that Rama use to eat meat in fests, stating that during Rama's nuptial celebration many dishes of meat were served, and Adiatmikha-Ramayana states the same. I never was concerned with the fact that Rama could eat meat or not, because for certain He can do anything He likes. If you argue that there is ample evidence that Rama doesn't eat meat, one should argue the opposite without any fear, because as a ksatriya Rama would follow the conduct of His caste. Ahimsa is not a ksatriya discipline. Ksatryias are allowed to eat meat, and should do it to preserve their belligerent nature. Therefore Rama would follow ksatriya-dharma in this regard.
|
Maitreya Member |
posted 07-13-2001 09:49 AM
I just have a quick question.Are there any restrictions in shruti texts about those who can directly study shruti texts? Just curious. Thanks, |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 11:16 AM
Who should study sruti? This study should be done alone or under someone else's direction? There is no restriction to study sruti besides one's eligibility to do it. And what is this eligibility? Sruti states that sudras have no eligibility to study sruti, but sruti also states that a sudra is anyone who is grief-stricken. That's to say, those who are in the mundane conception of life, identifying themselves with the material body, family, etc. cannot understand precepts on spiritual life. When one sincerely decides; atha athah brahma-jijñasa - "Now it is time to research into Brahman," then this eligibility spontaneously arises. For certain it is good to go to a school and to have a good instructor. But Hari states that He will give intelligence (yoga-buddhi) to attain Him according to individual's surrender to Him. As study of sastra can be performed either with or without sraddha, the result is obviously independent of sraddha or asraddha, or any other mental activity. Sruti main instructions are: "Study sastra and have absolute confidence in Hari's Grace after surrender yourself to His absolute free will." |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:39 PM
quote: Congratulations, I salute your scholarship.
quote: There should be no question of which one to translate. Madhva has made it clear that only mula-ramayana is the authentic ramayana. Why should we look for the "devotional" ramayana. It is not man's duty to choose the scriptures that fit him. Which scriptures are truly divinely authored must be accepted.
quote: The purpose of a kshatriya in hunting dear is to utilize them in yajna, not to simply to eat their flesh. Regardless, it is again just your opinions which you expect everyone to accept. This has been your patern. Someone else will offer scriptural evidence, and your reply is "I am a big scholar, I read so many books, take my word for it." For example: You claimed that Bhavishya Purana was an upapurana. I corrected that point with scriptural evidence, but you refused to acknowledge this and instead challenged the point again even after being shown multiple evidences from various Puranic lists. You stated that a number of vegetables such as tomatos, chilis, etc. were forbiden to be eaten in the scriptures. I showed that none of the vegetables you mentioned existed in India prior to 500 years ago, and this is substantiated by both western historians and the lack of sanskrit words to define these items. Your answer is still pending. You said a potato remains pure as the ganga even if it touches beef. I asked for evidence, but you couldn't substantiate it with a single quote. Still waiting on this one too. Now I have shown scriptural evidence from Valmiki Ramayana as to what Ramachandra ate, and I have shown that other claimed references to Rama eating meat have so far turned out to be false. Your answer is, "I'm a big Ramayana scholar, take my word for it." Certainly the 'modus operandi' of God is unknowable, by the 'modus operandi' of Satyaraj is clear. Make a statement, tell people to accept it because you are a scholar, when counter evidence is shown, ignore it and speak about
raganuga-bhakti. |
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-13-2001 01:41 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot the last step of the 'modus operandi'. Throw in a few samplings of the word 'shruti' here and there to make it appear that your statements are actually based on some upanishadic texts. |
kailasa Member |
posted 07-13-2001 09:55 PM
If the man is not at a level Lord Rama, whether there is a sense him to imitate? If our purpose love, why we speak about meat so much? For us all is combined, as bhakti it is top, it comprises also previous stages (karma, gyana). The meat is pleasant to you what? Can be to you it is pleasant what everywhere cut the cows and all remaining, there can be it badly? Also it can not be necessary to use a name the God for acquitting itself? Probably on you already karma does not act? You want to begin new motion bhakti? Great devoted, which by nothing are desecrated? Lord Rama has killed Ravana, whether you can repeat it?
|
jndas Administrator |
posted 07-14-2001 10:42 AM
tiirtheShu pratidriiShTeShu raajaa medhyaan pashuun vane yaavadarthamala.m lubdho hanyaad iti niyamyate "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." - Bhagavata Purana 4.26.6 |
animesh Member |
posted 07-15-2001 09:24 PM
Satyaraja ji, You are saying that each version of Ramayana states that Rama used to hunt deer in His childhood. Could you please tell where this is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana? As jndas ji has pointed out, there are many versions of Valmiki Ramayana. So, it is possible that you will quote from some version which I am not having. I have read Valmiki Ramayana published by Gita Press. Therefore, please also tell the name of the press. According to you, even Tulsidas has written that Rama used to eat meat. I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas. And I don't think there are many versions of this available. Could you please tell where exactly Tulsidas has written this? I also want to know on what basis you have come to the conclusion that kshatriyas must eat meat. It is correct to say that many kshatriyas used to eat meat. But, it does not mean that it was their duty to eat meat. I do not agree with your logic that just because Rama was a kshatriya, He must have eaten meat. |
Satyaraja dasa Member |
posted 07-16-2001 03:40 AM
According to you, even Tulsidas has written that Rama used to eat meat. I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas. And I don't think there are many versions of this available. Could you please tell where exactly Tulsidas has written this? (Animesh) Tulsidas has never said that 'Rama eats meat,' he said that Rama use to hunt a deer everyday and He give it as a gift to His father. His father eats the deer and Rama partakes meals with His father. He says that while describing Rama's youth in Balakandha, and also in Ram's nuptial celebrations in the same kandha where several dishes of meat were served. Valmiki also states the same. Read Rama's marriage party. Guita press also has published a Ramacaritamanasa, and recently Munshiram Manoharlal has published a very beautiful and 'de luxe' edition. Excellent translation according all scholars. We had choose to translate and to published Tulsidas Ramayana into Portuguese due its incomparable beautiful and its intention to glorify Rama's lila in a popular language and in an easy and very simply devotional way. If one sees any difference between Valmiki's Ramayana and Tulsidas' he is actually seeing ghosts. |