Lord Rama's eating habits..

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

I have a question regarding Lord Rama's eating habits

while in the Dandakaranya forest.

 

Apparently there is some sort of issue that states

that Lord Rama ate meat at some time in His life,

either as a Crown Prince/King or while exiled in the

forest. The evidence for this is meant to be in the

Valmiki Ramayan:

 

"Hanuman, upon meeting Sita Devi in Lanka is asked

about the welfare of Lord Ram and Hanuman replies '

separated from you, even his normal activities and

diet are not happening, neither does he eat meat nor

does he drink as he used to.'" [source

unsubstantiated]

 

I am aware that this is a running issue among some

Indologists, and I am also aware that Srila Prabhupada

made statements about this issue, though I have

forgotten what he said and have failed to find the

necessary references in his books. Can any prabhu help

me in finding out if there is any truth to this issue?

 

Can you also posts relevant quotes where necessary, to

prove conclusively that Lord Rama NEVER ate meat? It

would even better to receive shastric refutations

rather than Srila Prabhupada's words, although I would

highly appreciate both.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Sanjay

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote:

> Haribol,

>

> I have a question regarding Lord Rama's eating habits

> while in the Dandakaranya forest.

>

> Apparently there is some sort of issue that states

> that Lord Rama ate meat at some time in His life,

> either as a Crown Prince/King or while exiled in the

> forest. The evidence for this is meant to be in the

> Valmiki Ramayan:

 

It has recently occured to me, that no one offered an answer to your

question.

 

Regarding Lord Raama being vegetarian, there is abundant evidence to

this effect in Gita Press edition of Vaalmiiki Raamaayana:

 

Here are a few:

 

caturdasha 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,

subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up

royal fare(raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 20.29). (spoken by Shrii

Raama to Kausalyaa prior to His departing for the 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 shall not cause any annoyance to you while living with you

(raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 27.16). (spoken by Siitaa to Raama)

 

There are many, MANY statements like this in which Lord Raama states

that He will subsist on fruits, roots, etc. Knowing this, the

translator points out that other references which *seem* to indicate

eating of meat, can and should be interpreted to mean eating of

uncooked foods, or something like that.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishnasusarla" <krishna@a...> wrote:

 

[MODERATOR NOTE: Excess text deleted]

 

> There are many, MANY statements like this in which Lord Raama

states

> that He will subsist on fruits, roots, etc. Knowing this, the

> translator points out that other references which *seem* to

indicate

> eating of meat, can and should be interpreted to mean eating of

> uncooked foods, or something like that.

>

> yours,

>

> - K

 

Hare Krishna, AGTSP

 

I hope you will forgive for I cannot provide sanskrit quotes nor can

I quote the passage accurately, but I did read the Gita Press

Ramayana where Sita Devi asks Hanuman about Lord Rama welfare and you

could misinterpret this question. The way I read and understood the

question was that Sita Devi was asking Hanuman whether Lord Rama

being in the condition described by Hanuman had deviated from

religious principles, i.e. had he started eating meat etc. Not that

Sita Devi was asking whether Lord Rama had resumed eating meat. She

was merely asking whether Lord Rama was still sticking to his

obligations and his vows (as quoted by Krishnasusarla prabhu above)

and had not deviated from these.

 

Haribol

Mukesh

[Guest guest]

> "krishnasusarla" <krishna

> Re: Lord Rama's eating habits..

>

> caturdasha 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, subsisting like ascetics on bulbs,

> roots and fruits and giving up

> royal fare(raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 20.29).

> (spoken by Shrii Raama to Kausalyaa prior to His

> departing for the

> forest)

 

> the

> translator points out that other references which

> *seem* to indicate

> eating of meat, can and should be interpreted to

> mean eating of

> uncooked foods, or something like that.

 

 

Thank you for this explanation.

 

Indeed, it was the very verse that you quoted

(madhumUlaphalairjIvanhitvA munivadAmiSham) that

seemed to describe the eating of meat.

 

It seems to be a running issue among Indologists and

critics that Sri Rama ate meat, so I decided to check

it out with an online edition of Valmiki Ramayan.

 

I was able to find an (as yet) incomplete edition

(http://www.valmikiramayan.net) and I looked up one of

the so-called evidential verses. It seems that in

Ayodhya-kanda 2.20.29, meat is mention. Here:

 

caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |

madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam ||

2-20-29

 

29. vatsyaami =I shall live vane =in forest, vijane

=bereft of people munivat =like sage chaturdasha

=fourteen varshhaaNi =years hitvaa =leaving off

aamishham =meat, jiivan =living madhu muulaphalaiH=

with honey, roots and fruits.

 

“I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for

fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with

roots, fruits and honey”.

(http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga20/ayodhya_20_frame.htm)

 

 

It is quite obvious that this translation is somewhat

nondevotional and that the dispute may lie in the

translation of the word "aamiSam". I certainly hope

that the explanation is that of meaning cooked food or

somewhat similar, depending on any alternative

translations of "aamiSam" if there are any. What do

you or anyone else here think about the word

"aamiSam"?

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Sanjay

 

=====

"Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora."

 

"The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death

I have no other refuge but Them."

 

-- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> Thank you for this explanation.

>

> Indeed, it was the very verse that you quoted

> (madhumUlaphalairjIvanhitvA munivadAmiSham) that

> seemed to describe the eating of meat.

 

Strangely enough, this isn't the verse which the Gita Press

commentator tries to "reinterpret." Rather, the troubling verse

according to him is:

 

aiNeya.m maa.msamaahR^itya shaalaa.m yakShyaamahe vayam |

kartavya.m vaastushamana.m saimitre chirajiivibhiH || raa 2.56.22 ||

 

Fetching the pulp of the bulb known by the name of Gajakanda we shall

propitiate the deity presiding over the hut (roasting the pulp and

offering it as an oblation to the deity). The rite of appeasing the

(evil) spirit haunting a newly-erected structure must be gone through

by those wishing to live long. (raamaayanam, ayodhya-kaaNDa 56.22)

 

In his footnote to this very shloka, the translator writes:

 

"The words 'aiNeya.m maa.msam' in the above verse has been purposely

taken to mean the pulp of the bulb known by the name of Gajakanda;

for if the words are interpreted otherwise in the sense of the meat

of a dear, such an interpretation would expose Shrii Raama to self-

contradiction in as much as he has already signified his intention in

the presence of his own beloved mother 'to live on bulbs, roots, and

fruits (alone) during the period of his exile in the forest,

forswearing meat like ascetics' (2.20.29), reiterated this intention

to live on fruits and roots to his father in 2.34.59 and repeated the

thing once more to Sage Bharadwaaja in 2.54.16. And since it has been

said by the poet himself in praise of Shrii Raama elsewhere that he

never altered his statement (raamo dvirnaabhibhaaShate) and firmly

adhered to his utterances, he could not even be conceived to have

gone back upon his word."

 

Obviously, our translator makes some good points, that Raama

elsewhere stated He would live on fruits, roots, etc and so He can

not be said to eat meat. Statements that seem to say this must be

interpreted differently.

 

But what blows my mind is the fact that he quotes 2.20.29 as meaning

that Lord Raama would abstain from meat, although he actually

translates that verse elsewhere as:

 

"Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live like ascetics on

bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal fare."

 

I think that the translator is here of the opinion that the word

aamiSham does not mean "meat," although that is the way it is

commonly translated. In his footnote, he refers to the shloka and

translates the word as "meat" only for the sake of making a point,

specifically, that even if it did mean "meat" in 2.20.29, other

occurrences of the word cannot mean the same thing since 2.20.29

would then be read as Lord saying He was giving it up.

 

Question is, can we reasonably conclude that "aamiSham" means "royal

fare," as the Gita Press guy indicates in his original translation of

2.20.29. In his footnote to 2.20.29, he quotes the following (source

unclear):

 

aakarShaNe'pi pu.msi syaadaamiSha.m pu.mnapu.msakam |

bhogyavastuni sambhoge'pyutkochepalle'pi cha || --iti medinii ||

 

Apparently, this is the rationale he gives for translating "aamiSham"

as "royal fare." But I am not clear on what the source of this is.

What is "medinii?" Can any of our Sanskritists offer an explanation?

 

> It is quite obvious that this translation is somewhat

> nondevotional and that the dispute may lie in the

> translation of the word "aamiSam". I certainly hope

> that the explanation is that of meaning cooked food or

> somewhat similar, depending on any alternative

> translations of "aamiSam" if there are any. What do

> you or anyone else here think about the word

> "aamiSam"?

 

I looked up the meaning of the word in Monier-Williams:

 

aamiSha (neuter): food, meat, prey; an object of enjoyment, a

pleasing or beautiful object; coveting, longing for; lust, desire; a

gift, boon, fee

 

I think the Gita Press translator is translating "aamiSha" as "a

pleasing or beautiful object," or in other words, "royal fare."

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On 21 Jul 2002, at 3:06, krishnasusarla wrote:

 

> aakarShaNe'pi pu.msi syaadaamiSha.m pu.mnapu.msakam |

> bhogyavastuni sambhoge'pyutkochepalle'pi cha || --iti medinii ||

>

> Apparently, this is the rationale he gives for translating "aamiSham"

> as "royal fare." But I am not clear on what the source of this is.

> What is "medinii?" Can any of our Sanskritists offer an explanation?

 

I believe that "medinii" refers to the medinii-koza, a lexicon

authored by Medinikara. Unfortunately I do not own a copy of this

lexicon, so I cannot check to see if it contains the above verse.

 

Sincerely,

Tadiya-seva dasa

[Guest guest]

Medinii -- "having fatness or fertility", the earth,

land, soil, ground.

 

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.