Reg. postings on Meat eating and Ayyappa etc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaagavatas:We have received numerous complaints that the above topics generated by innocuous queries have turned into debates and personal recriminations.The discussion is straying into undesirable and unnecessary areas. We allowed a few of the postings lest we should be accused of partiality.

 

We cannot allow any more. Once again, we wish to reiterate that as already made clear in an earlier mail, (copied below) "Srirangasri" is NOT the forum for such forays. We are reluctantly constrained to disallow any more postings in "Srirangasri" Discussions, if needed, may be done through private mails. Moderators

 

 

 

ramanbilTo: ; srivaishnavan; manv2005; vasudevanmg; reddynpCC: tatachar; sudarsanp; deepak.vinod; kausalyaputhriSubject: RE: Re: rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:57:32 +0000

Dear Swamins:I am sorry to find that an innocuous reference to "rama's food habits" has turned out to be an unnecessary debate.As you know "Sri Ranga Sri" is NOT the forum for such debates. So, I am reluctantly constrained to call a halt to the series.This does not mean that the discussions are devoid of merit. In fact, as I pointed out earler, they provide enough food for thought and brings forth well researched inputs from very learned scholars.I personally enjoyed them. But, in the present political context, the points are likely to be misquoted and twisted to suit the convenience of those trying to deride Bhagavaan,Sri Rama.

The discussions may be carried on through private mails.Thanks for your undrstanding and co-operation.DasohamAnbil Ramaswamy

 

 

anv2005To: vasudevanmgSubject: Re: Re: rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8CC: Tatachar; ramanbil; sudarsanp; deepak.vinod; kausalyaputhri

Respected Swamins,Adiyen's humble pranams to you all.What started as a question on whether Rama ate meat is now enlarged with another issue of Rama's act of 'killing' by hunting.From Sri MGV's response, it is clear that swami had not argued nor could justify even after 8 mails that Rama ate meat. No one can ever, for, such a proof can not be found anywhere in the 6 khandams of Valmiki Ramayana.The 2nd issue :-Sri MGV (quote) "By the time 'sending of raama' is asked by visvaamithra and raama sent with him, he was only 12 years

 

– not even 18 - a 'major' in present day context – so a 'major' can do whatever he likes – legally permitted - and his dad cannot question –

 

– but raama was 12 when he goes for hunting.

 

– Hunting is a game of 'himsa or ahimsa' for 'pleasure or not' – let Manivannan swamy clarify."

 

 

Sri Tatachar (quote)"So Rama feeling pity on ailing frog ALONE DOES NOT prove that he was not used to meat consumption and all those 300+ variety of animals an dteh animal sthey kille din teh forest was only to offer to meat hungrt devataas in yagnya! "(Adiyen continues)By saying that Rama had killed animals for pleasure, or himsa or for yajna, are not our respectable and knowldegeable swamins playing into the mindset of Karunanidhi, the CM of Tamil nadu who asked " when Salman khan (the Hindhi actor) is accused and punished for killing a rare deer, why no whimper is being raised against Raman who also killed a rare golden deer? Why no punishment to Raman?"What would you say for this question?What are we trying to prove by talking about what the Western animal right activists are saying one thing but behaving to the contrary and from the rules and habits of our present times?And the major - minor rules are for us and made by us.How can we use this as yardstick for Raman?The only yardstick for so-called 'majoring' in his times is getting intiated by upanayanam. So it is not proper to see from the perspective of our times on majoring. If we insist to know about majoring at His times, we can say that Rama 'majored' at his upanayanam.Coming ot the issue, if we kill, it is an offence.Should we attribute the same law to Raman?Then in what perspective we must see Raman's act?First of all we must know through which paradigm we must analyse Ramayanam.If we are seeing Him as a Divine character, then we must analyse with the CONVICTION that He is God!We must have our convictions, rules and assumptions right.Otherwise we will be doing the job of a Romila Thapar or Ramasamy Periyar, and what we write then will not be Ramayanam, but Keemayanam!Even if we say that it is for the purpose of writing a research, we must follow the rules and conviction around which this Ithihaasa is woven.The conviction is that Rama is God.The God killing the animals at whatever age will be for some purpose.None of His acts will go without a reasoning, particularly if it is about killing.By killing by hunting, as per conviction, Rama had done dushta nigraham (killing the dushtas in animal forms) or had relieved many souls from the curses and perhaps even granted them Eternal Release or moksha.The other convictions, namely, Ahimsa, sattwa and exceptional circumstance, have been already dealt with by adiyen in the first mail on this issue.Now let us look at the issue from other paradigms.These are from Rama's own words.Rama speaks about killing by hunting and killing by meat eaters, in his reply to Vali.He also tells the rules.He justifies killing by hunting by a " Rajarishi" - not just a Raja, the king! (The bala khanda verses on hunting therefore can either be of Rama, the God or Rama as a Rajarishi.). He defines the rajarishis as 'manusha roopEna devas' and not just humans!(4-18-42)He justifies the pose and posture of the animals at the time of killing by meat eaters, and not meat eating itself!. If He justifies meat eating, it will run counter to many dharma slokas and will be against sattwam and karma thoery. An embodiment of Dharma can not speak in 2 voices on the same issue of dharma. So the slokas must be read with proper perspective. (From vali vadam in Kishkindha khandam)Rama's reply to Vaali's accusation on killing him:---quote begins-----------------na me tatra manastaapo na manyuH haripu.ngava |vaaguraabhiH ca paashaiH ca kuuTaiH ca vividhaiH naraaH || 4-18-37praticChannaaH ca dR^ishyaaH ca gR^ihNanti subahuun mR^igaan |"I have neither angst nor ire in this matter of my eliminating you, or, your reviling me, oh, best monkey, but listen to the other point I wish to make clear. People will be capturing several animals, either covertly or overtly, with snares, springes and even with numerous contrivances. [4-18-37, 38a]pradhaavitaan vaa vitrastaan visrabdhaan ativiSThitaan || 4-18-38pramattaan apramattaan vaa naraa maamsa ashino bhR^isham |vidhyanti vimukhaam ca api na ca doSo atra vidyate || 4-18-39"Meat eating people will undeniably kill animals, either they are speedily sprinting or standing steadily, fully dismayed or undismayed, vigilant or unvigilant, and even if they are facing away, in that there is no sacrilege. [4-18-38b, 39]yaanti raajarSayaH ca atra mR^igayaam dharma kovidaaH |tasmaat tvam nihato yuddhe mayaa baaNena vaanara |ayudhyan pratiyudhyan vaa yasmaat shaakhaa mR^igo hi asi || 4-18-40"In this world even the kingly sages well-versed in virtue will go on hunting, and hunting is no face to face game, as such, oh, vanara, therefore I felled you in combat with my arrow because you are a tree-branch animal, whether you are not combating with me or combating against me. [4-18-40]durlabhasya ca dharmasya jiivitasya shubhasya ca |raajaano vaanarashreSTha pradaataaro na samshayaH || 4-18-41"Kings are the bounteous benefactors of the unobtainable righteousness and propitious lifestyles, oh, best vanara, no doubt about it. [4-18-41]taan na hi.msyaat na ca aakroshen na aakSipen na apriyam vadet |devaa maanuSa ruupeNa caranti ete mahii tale || 4-18-42"They the kings are not to be harmed, also not to be reproved, not disparaged and nothing displeasing is spoken to them, as they are the divinities conducting themselves in human form on the plane of earth. [4-18-42]tvam tu dharmam avij~naaya kevalam roSam aasthitaH |viduuSayasi maam dharme pitR^i paitaamahe sthitam || 4-18-43"I am abiding by the ethicalness practised by my father and forefathers, but you revile me without the knowledge of rightness, just by clinging to your rancour." Thus said Rama to dying Vali. [4-18-43]evam uk{}taH tu raameNa vaalii pravyathito bhR^isham |na doSam raaghave dadhyau dharme adhigata nishchayaH || 4-18-44Vali is much distressed at heart of hearts when Rama has said categorically in that way, whereby, deriving certitude about rightness he found no incorrectness with Rama. [4-18-44]----------------------------quote ended--------------------Finally a word to SrI Tatachar who said that our acharyas have destroyed many a universal Truth of sanatana dharma! Respected swamin, Adiyen has no knowledge of those things, nor even the avarneeyas that swamin is well versed with.Adiyen only knows what acharyas want us to do!!Acharyas have wanted us to be pathi vrathais, who can not think anything wrong of their pathis. Adiyen's pathi, lord is Bhagawan, Sri Rama. Rama can never be wrong, can never do anything abhorable.To suspect him of meat-eating and hunting for himsa or pleasure is like suspecting the chastity of one's own mother. Others can suspect. But the children must never even in dreams suspect the mother!In this respect, Adiyen thanks Sri Deepak for penning this wonderful insight.(quote Sri Deepak Vinod)"One can bring quotes from everywhere and be so proud to present facts in the knowledged way...but the "dharma Saar" is lost...

There is a difference between Dharma and Dharma Saar...essence of riteousness.

 

One may like to refer to the story of Vipra-patni from 10 Canto in Sri-mad Bhagwatam. The vipras were practising Dharma..but had no dharma saar, as a result they were so proud and even offended Krishna.

 

Please pardon my offences....

Its just that every post on this matter made me think that in this Kaliyuga as per Srimad Bhagwatam, the essence of shAstra will be lost due to inappropriate preaching and translation."(end quote)Adiyen has no intention of continuing with this thread unless an interference is needed - like when the mother's integrity is questioned, the son can not remain quiet....Adiyen also begs your pardon if adiyen had hurt anyone. Hurting is not adiyen's intention, much like adiyen's Master, Raman.Even the Ramayana written by a hunter (Please refer Sri MGV's mail below), starting with a scene of violence (maa nishadaa slokam) is not about himsa.The sage utters the maa nishadaa slokam with utter compassion (karuna veditvaat) .After that only he becomes anguished (shokaartena).The mercy of Lord is always there. But it can be felt only when we are in distress!The distress causes shokam - (Ramayana runs with pathos).It is the shokam that encelopes human life.The four-faced Brahma who comes to remove the worry of Valmiki on this maa nishaadaa slokam, advises him to just leave it as such.Because that shokam of loss, of death and of killing is the way of world.That is how the world exists. It is Brahma's creationSo leave it at that.Instead (Brahma says) talk about the dharma of Rama.(dharmaatmano bhagavato loke raamasya dhiimataH ||vR^ittam kathaya dhiirasya yathaa te naaradaat shrutam | (1-2-32))"You shall narrate the legend of Rama, the virtuous, intellectual and an intrepid one, and a godlike person in this world as well, as you have heard it from sage Narada." [1-2-32b-33a]Brahma does not say what Rama's story will do to the people.He just wants Valmiki to narrate the life of that dharmishtan.It is only that we learn from Rama's story.The redeeming learning is encapsuled beautifully by Papanasam sivan in his song "Raamanai bhajitthaal " (in maandu ragam)"nammai sodhanai-th-theeyil sputam iduvan - irangithookki edutthu anandam aLutthidivaan"He is subjecting us to himsa. Then only He can lift us up from himsa and make us feel happy.Then only we can experience His mercy.The Ramayana does not start or run with himsa. It starts and runs with melancholy and pathos which is very much the nature of living in this world.That Rama is the Rakshakan is the essence of the story. A rakshakan can never do himsa to others unless there are other strong dharmic reasons. (veda vidhi in yajna bali, hunting / killing for dushta nigraham or Release. But eating meat has no dharmic reasoning. )Hanuman's first description of Rama to Sita (sundhara khandam ) is"Rakshita swasya dharmasya swa-janasya cha rakshita/rakshitha jeeva lokasya dharmasya cha paranthapah//When Sita asked Rama what His parama dharmaam was, He had replied "para-dhukkam sahiyaamai" (sundhara khandam) Rama can never stand the suffering of others.How can such a Rama do himsa to others?Adiyens humble pranams to one and all,dasan,Manivannan.

 

On 10/28/07, MG Vasudevan <vasudevanmg wrote: If you are using a screen reader, you may wish to switch to basic HTMLfor a better experience.

Sub:

rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8 Inbox

 

Dear Srivaishnavaas,

 

First of all my praNaamams to you all.

 

My respects to sri Anbil swamy.

 

This is only a response mail to be in private circulation – primarily. But if anbil swamy decides to circulate in list, I have no objection.

 

Part a: On anbil swamy's portion of mail quoted below as first mail, I will not offer any comments.

Though I would like very much to quote from Monier Williams Sanskrit English dictionary always, I referred V.S.Apte dictionary and did that portion. Since it is concise, I used the meaning, whatever given there. [i have both on my table ready]. Please substitute with what anbil swamy has added.

The usage of meat in sraardhams was given from mahaa bhaaratham to prove that it was not a taboo those days and knowing fully well that it has no connection with raama's food habits.

 

Also while referring that only came other points from bheeshma's lectures to yudhishtira.

 

Part B: On Mr. Manivannan's post forwarded by anbil swamy as post 2

 

dear manivannan swamy – Thank you very much for the comment that I am a regular reader of MGV's posts.

 

– But would like to add -- it is 'too too early' to pass such remarks " as hardly there was any information on what Rama ate but rather the series seemed to focus on whether Rama could have eaten meat!!"

 

In my series – in posts upto 8 - I have not yet gone to that stage of even 'raama's birth'.

 

Then how can I give his habits.

 

What I wanted is to cover slowly is in same way from sankshepa, then how vaalmeeki has covered even minor details like sabari food, then go sargam by sargam.

 

Meanwhile, since sri sudarsan's swamy's mail came, I got diverted to some extent, which I said in my 8 th post.

 

Since the basic spark was sri deepak's mail, I had to add that sundara kaandam portion and uththara kaanda portion of raamaayanam and deal that ayodhya 56 th sargam portion to confirm meat eating was not a taboo.

 

Also this portion given below, I did not use in my mail to list – but gave in the private mail to anbil swamy and Deepak –

quote

– And after slokam 33 in this sargam there is a prakshiptha slokam which is gOvindaraja's paatam – a variation available in gOvindaraajaa's paatam only -

 

vanyai: maalyai: phalai: moolai: maamsai: yathaa vidhi adhibhir japaischa vEdhOkthai: dharbhai scha sasamith kusai:

thou tharpayithvaa bhoothaani raaghavou saha seethayaa

thadhaa vivisathu: saalaam susubhaam subhalakshaNou ||

here again he offered as per rules – the roots, fruits, and meat – and offered tharpaNam, and then entered and settled in the house. So nowhere in this sargam it is stated he ate meat.

Unquote

 

Again in list mail also I repeated what I sent as a private draft mail first to anbil swamy as reply to Deepak - in which I said raama did not eat – as in sargam 56 – but offered as bali

 

a kshathriya going for hunting even before 12 - giving a bali in 25 or 26 – is NOT at all a taboo - those days – the lines are very clear – [also covered in lakshmaNa series].

 

Again I said even in my lakshmana series, lakshmana telling raama 'you know the saasthrams right'.

 

Also in slokam 1-18-25 and 26 – there itself vaalmeeki has stated all 4 are well versed in vedhaas including dhanur vedham – the science of archery.

 

So let swamy read the mail again.

 

– as vaalmeeki in that 18th sargam of baala kaandam itself says 'raama goes for hunting on horse back and whenever he goes lakshmaNa follows like his bahi praaNa'.

– [upto slokam 23 it is birth of the 4, and connected enjoyment, naming of 4 children].

 

– In 31st slokam straight - raama goes for hunting and that too it is referred in context of describing the closeness of lakshmana and raama.

 

– By the time 'sending of raama' is asked by visvaamithra and raama sent with him, he was only 12 years

 

– not even 18 - a 'major' in present day context – so a 'major' can do whatever he likes – legally permitted - and his dad cannot question –

 

– but raama was 12 when he goes for hunting.

 

– Hunting is a game of 'himsa or ahimsa' for 'pleasure or not' – let Manivannan swamy clarify.

 

– I quote the slokam below. 1-18-31.

mR^iSTam+annam+upaaniitam= delicious, food, brought [for him];

ashnaati+na+ ca= eat it, not, also;

tam+vinaa= him [Lakshmana,] without;

yadaa+hi+hayam+aruuDhaH= when, verily, horse, mounted;

mR^igayaam+yaati+raaghava= for a hunting game, goes, Raghava.

 

Rama would not eat food brought for him, however delicious it may be, without Lakshmana, and whenever Raghava goes on a hunting game... mounted on horseback, [Lakshmana follows him behind...] [1-18-31]

 

Here I would like to add as added points –

Vaalmeeki is a hunter basically

He saw another hunter killing one krouncha pakshi among two

That too when the two birds were in mithunam – which mithunam is supposed to be not seen by anybody else

Vaalmeeki also cursed the hunter who killed the bird

Then he repented why he did that cursing.

 

So the kaavyam itself starts with 'the hunting scene' – a 'killing' scene, a jeeva himsai scene - and then the cursing slokam becomes a mangala slokam – maa nishaadha.

 

So 'hunting' – is it 'himsai' or 'ahimsai' – let swamy explain.

 

And throughout the raamaayanam somebody is killed intentionally, somebody is defaced. May be bhagavaan raama does that as part of his avathaara kaaryam – dhushta nigraham. so this killing of animals for doing bali is also part of the established karmas as found in vedhaas. Let it be himsai or ahimsai – let us accept that.

 

[Further the parNa saalaa entry is in ayodhya kaandam with mruga bali as said by raama. In aaraNya it is entry with pushpa bali done by lakshmana not raama. To that extent manivannan swamy to stand corrected].

 

I hasten to add here for the above comment on vaalmeeki and starting of the kaavyam

– it is NOT with the intention of deriding or degrading ramayanam – which is more and more dear to my heart and mind – 'and doing research in that – as a result of which these articles appear' - as V.Sadagopan swamy communicated yesterday also

– but I am presenting facts.

 

On that 'pathram phalam pushpam thOyam' – I have nothing to say except that the intention or the mind of offering to the lord is more important than whether it is 'PPPT'---- swamin, hope I understood geethaa correctly to a very little extent – may be 0.1% .

 

Part C: On third mail from sudarsan swamy

 

– bheeshma's answer is very clear

– in case of doubt what 10 vedha virpannaaL say is the final

 

– nowadays viz. in this kali age – they say no yagnams, only prapaththi for sreevaishnavaas, for other vaishnavaas and others it is naama sankeerthanam only

 

– if any yagnam then only all these meat etc comes and then doubts.

– NO yagnams itself.

 

– Even if it is so then also no animal sacrifice.

– So there is no question of 2 periods for sree viashnavaas – prior to and after prapaththi

– like B.C. and A.D. of Christians.

 

– so I hope I answered that open question to me.

 

Part D: On the response mail again from sri manivannan –

 

Manivannan swamy – please clarify - What are the other dhevathaas referred to in the yagnam where mruga bali is offered – if it is not brahma, dheva, Pithru, bootha and manushya yagnaas – apart from this list of 5 - who are the other 'dhevaas' offered meat in yagnaas.

 

I am ready to learn from any source and I do not claim any big scholar - except in civil engineering – of course I am a very good 'civil engineer' and knowledgeable enough in that field, served and retired now – knowledge gained still remains - not on these 'subjects'.

 

This Stephen knapp ref I have already seen.

 

another 'hedonistic themes in ramayana' from where I quoted that 'uththara kaaNda ramayanam portion is already covered in my exchange with anbil swamy as private mail.

 

Also exchanged is a note in valmikiramayan website itself on rama's vegetarianism - sent to sri anbil swamy and deepak.

 

therein the authors of website strongly say it is jains influence that vegetarian twist is given in the meanings of ramayan in later days.

 

Already I quoted a portion of 'govindaraja' who offers his salutation to 'nammaazhvaar' in his first line of baala kaandam as his guru vandanam. And all sreevaishnavaas accept govindaraja vyaakhyaanam as an acceptable one than others.

 

Another information on this nonveg – is even today bengali brahmins and brahmins of orissa close to bengal are 'fish eaters'.

 

The other day when I was in kolkata I had a bengali colleague, when my friend introduced me to him saying he writes on ramayan etc, that bengali friend started quoting from ramayan and started asking questions to me.

 

Just then he finished a good fish item in lunch – I ant describe what it is - where I was also forced to eat a 5 star lunch - of course a full veg for me – my course outside is always paruppu saadham and thayir saadham.

 

 

Part E: on the mail of Sri Tatachar swamy of date [27th Saturday]

 

Swamy is clear in his understanding. Hats off to him. I do not know his age. At his age he is very clear in his understandings.

 

Raama lived as a 'brahmachari' when seethaa was by his side – in the forest and later.

How it is – this was one of my earlier articles

– as per manu's law - raama is a brahmachari – as also arjuna –known for his many wives -

 

again another quote from maha bharatha referred in that article.

 

The meaning of brahmacharyam was different as per manu – same way the bali and non veg stuff.

– 'not totally absenting from sex' as interpreted these days.

 

 

Part F: on mail again from manivaanan – that frog story – I also read it in 'raamayana kuttik kadhaigal' in tamil. Thanks for referring that.

 

Let me progress with the series and meanwhile we will continue these discussions outside the sriragasri as sri anbil swamy said. But if swamy advises me to keep off I am ready for that also -

 

[may be that is what is running in anbil swamy's mind - since swamy has not released next 5 portions to the list - till bala and athiala manthrams].

 

Regards to all and once again my respects to anbil swamy

 

MGVPS: read KST's mailjust now. my points are already statedon KST. again my appreciation only for his clear understanding.

 

 

 

 

On 10/28/07, Tatachar < Tatachar wrote: Dear Swamin,No point in going around and around. Two facts are quite obvious:They ate and it is hard for our acharyas and people like you to digest that! Adding pages and pages of vyaakhyanams is totally unnecessary and are rarelysupportive. Our Achaarya explanations for most part are appealing onlybecause the followers trust in their wisdom - in the absence of that, they often sound shallow and narrow. Basically each one of themhave earnestly destroyed the basic universal truth of sanathna dharma.Just think about the "avarNeeyas" so dear to our Achaaryas (all sorts, not just Srivaishnava). If you understand Purusha suktam, can there beany avarNeeya- it is like telling some people are born with no blood.This is a good example on how they are willing to go out of wayto protect their mookneram tradition instead of truth! There is no taboo about meat consumption in our foremost scriptures. It is the attitude that counts. Many peopel who eat meat in this country have also camapigned to banish use of animals (such as mice) for basic cosemetics products discovery and research. We can not even smear baby oil on mouse back in our company. The announcement of abandoning use of animals for research altogether was made while we were relishing on just served barbequed beef/pork ribs at a special celebration for 50th anniversary of our reserach center! So Rama feeling pity on ailing frog ALONE DOES NOT prove that he was not used to meat consumption and all those 300+ variety of animals an dteh animal sthey kille din teh forest was only to offer to meat hungrt devataas in yagnya! dAsanK.S. tAtAchAr-- Vasudevan MG