Did Rama eat Meat?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Kings generally hunted under certain circumstances and offered the animals' flesh into the sacrificial fire. This was not for the purpose of eating.

 

[anveshan]

Whether Rama was a veg or non-veg does not belittle him. Rama and Krishna should be judged by their actions and what

they left behind to the humanity.

 

I have read Valmiki Ramayanam, Adhyatma Ramayanam(Malayalam), and the Rama Charita Manas(Hindi). Though I have not come across a specific verse refering Rama eating meat, there is a specific description of Rama bringing hunted deer meet and Sita drying it up on the rocks (for preservation). If Rama did not eat meat, it could be for Sita or Lakshmana or may be for invited guests. We have no clue. The words used are 'palalam' and palali'.

 

There are numerous references in sruties and smruties of the meat eating habits of the Aryans. But it does not diminish the glory of the ancient seers, sages and great kings.

 

Right here in Devabhoomi Uttaranchal, goats are sacrificed

in the Bhairava and Devi temples and the meat distributed as

prasadam.

 

Meat eating became an anathema to the upper castes(excepting the kshatriyas) due to the influence of Jina and Buddha.

[Guest guest]

 

Though I have not come across a specific verse refering Rama eating meat, there is a specific description of Rama bringing hunted deer meet and Sita drying it up on the rocks (for preservation).

 

 

Previously you said hare meat, now you say deer meat. If it actually exists, please provide the exact quote. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

[anveshan]

==========================================================

"There are references in Aranya Kanda that Sita was drying hare meat in the sun on a rock in the forest and in Sundara Kanda that Rama has stopped eating meat."

============================================================

This whole sentence is a mistake(mine). I wanted to convey that in Sundara Kanda there is a reference that Sita dried

meat ( hiran or hare it does not specify). I am not having a text of Valmiki ramayana with me to locate and quote the exact verses and I have no idea the Valmiki ramayana I referred to is authentic or not, because till today I was under the impression that there is only one version of Valmiki Ramayana.

 

But in Sundara Kandam of Adhyatma Ramayanam, one of the accepted Ramayanas and almost a translation of Valmiki's

(it is in sanskritised Malayalam), there is a very clear reference which is by heart to me. Here Sita gives her ring

to Hanuman as a proof his having met him and tells him an incident which both Rama and she only knows. This happened in Aaranya(I mistakenly referred to Aaranya Kanda). Sita tells Hanuman:

 

" When, nearby the parnasala, I was drying the meat on the rocks. Rama came tired after hunting and wanted to take rest. He rested on my lap. At that time, Indratmaj Jayanta came(in the form of a crow) and stated eating meat pieces. I took pebbles and threw at him. One hit him, he got angry wounded me9with beak and nails) on the face. Blood started flowing down and fell on his face and forehead and the paramapurusha opened his eyes."

 

This is by heart to me. And the words that may refer to meat is 'palalm' and 'palali'(both in malayalam and sanskrit.)

 

I do not know whether I am wrong or not. But the reference exists.

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

Excuse my late entrance into this topic, but this very question bugged me for a while a time back.

 

I asked close friends both from the Gaudiya and Madhva school, and they clarified that there is NO reference to Lord Rama's supposed meat-eating in the original Valmiki Ramamayan.

 

They even provided a totally different translation for 'mamsa,' one which is in perfect accordance with different interpretations. Suffice to say, mamsa could also mean certain vegetables and tubers, and possibly onions.

 

I am recalling all this from memory, I will have a look in my mailbox and see if I have the original mail. But suffice to say, these Madhva scholars clarified my doubt and showed how Rama never ate meat nor can he be accused of doing so.

[mark]

It's not what goes into a person's mouth that makes him ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean.

 

Matthew 15:11

[Guest guest]

Hello all... while searching for adhyatma Ramayanam.. i have landed up in this page.. but i am very happy that i landed here.. because i have quoted the same in many discussions when my friends say they are pure veg.. then i say even in ramayana there is reference to eating meat.. i continue the story as when Jayanta disturbed Sita Rama took the Bow and arrow and shoot the Crow.. It was brahmastra and the entire world appologised to him and he took back the brahmastra but with a small punishment to Jayanta and the entire Crow genus.. As one eye of the crow got a problem.. if you see crows now watch them how they look.. they can only use one eye.. i mean they got a sight problem... i agree with him wwith the story

[Guest guest]

Hi:

 

in sanatana darma/hindu texts it has been mentiond that, a well versed person/brahmin will not drink milk from a cow with less than

5 nipples(sorry i do not know the tchnical term), meaning that such cows produce abundant milk(excess of its calfs consumption.)

 

th division of cows milk as prescribed is as follows:

-> the calf is givn foremost importance, and is allowed to take th first part.

 

-> aftr th calfs consumption, the next part is for ritual purposes.

 

-> and only the last part is for human consumption.

 

th above system is followed in ancient temples, ashrams etc...

 

so i would like to emphasis that such beholders of ahimsa would not have recomended animal sacrifice.

 

also sanyasis and sages would not travel during th rainy season becuase they pity the small insects that may get crushed under thir feet, so they remain in their moorings till the rainy season ends (in tropical climates and in general insects abound espcially during th rainy season)

 

also i would blindly argue that vedas and other spiritual texts may not

give emphasis on animal sacrifices, since many spiritual leaders such as adi sankara who would have definetely read vedas has not condemned it. (it may b notd that adi sankara rallied for and condemned human sacrifice in many temples worshipped by asura cult, eg. sringeri saradambal temple, karnataka)

 

either the interpretations of vedas were not understood or it could been corrupted under pressure from crusaders from the west.

 

[Guest guest]

 

in original valmiki ramayana th incident of jayanta is referrred mor or less as follows.

 

in th forest rama and sita were taking rest, a crow (jayanta) saw the mound of flesh in sitas chest and was enticed to pluck it, it plucked her again and again , she shooed it in a silent way as rama was taking rest by her, and she did not want to disturb his sleep. unable to bear it (as blood was comming from her chests) she got up, at that time rama

also wok up, the upper garments of sita suddenly fell, at that time she

felt so shy, hung hr head down,

 

rama on seeing blood drops comming from her chests, took a blade of grass(darbai), utterd th bramastra mantra and dirctd upon jayanta, jayanta ran as the arrow was chasing him , wnt to his father and all gods for refuge, was lt up by all, ultimated cam to rama, rama forgiving for his crime allowd th bramastra cut one of his eys (as a charged astra has to do its duty of attacking its enemy).

 

optimistic intelligentia view this as follows " for th heinous crime, jayanta has commited rama forgave jayanta spard his lif and allowd only his one of his eyes to b removed)

 

foolish pessimsts view this as follows" any how rama has harmed crow"

 

remeber half glass full and half glass wmpty story..

 

(forgiv me for typos , i am in a hurry and a dysfunctional keyboard ..)

[Guest guest]

A lot of time is wasted here by people who make claims based on secondary ramayan versions and worse, improperly translated versions.

Refer Acharya Madhva's taatparya-nirnaya that proves authenticity of valmiki Ramayamna.

Mula-Ramayana was told by Narada to Valmiki and was huge in size, it was abridged to 24000 to represent the Gayathri Mantra (24).

 

The other interpretations of Ramayana draw up wrong conclusions and often lack 'basic' understanding of sanskrit and the context of the verse, for example translating delicious-food as meat!!!

Wherever doubts can arise, Madhva's translation easily clears them by referring to correlations in other puranas, mahabharatha and also sources from the vedas.

 

These people who try to find holes in Ramayan want to prove something in their own agenda and pollute the knowledge of Ramayan in the world.

[ShegavichaRana]

In a famous boom "Ramayana" by none other than Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari who was a spiritual companion of Mahatma Gandhi and a scholar, who was well versed in Sanskrit and English, the author has clearly stated that Rama ate meat and has also mentioned that people shivered at the very concept of Rama eating meat, which was a custom prevalent in those days. He also stated that he had Valmiki and Kambar Ramayana as two main books from where he had taken all the information. Many of my Vaishnava friend said that, it was the Rigveda period, when meat eating was quite a common thing. Though, personally I am still unable to accept it.

[harish]

There have been many Ramayanas and interpretations of vedas by great people in history many with good intentions.

 

However the approach of the secular authors has always been that vedic sages were primitive warriors or priests describing nature.

This is not how the theistic commentators like Sankara,Ramanuja,Madhva interpret the Vedas. Acharyas interpreted the Tattva in Vedas by the guiding light of Vedanta, Brahmasutras and other texts.

For example, verses related to Ashwamedha Yagna can be interpreted as cutting various parts of the Horse and alternatively as signifying the role of devatas in the relevant places(Madhva Bhashya).

I am not an expert in Sanskrit or Vedanta but feel that one should beleive the works of respective Acharyas as these interpretations have been sustained in debate for centuries rather than beleive interpretation of the modern authors who are not subject of scrutiny and neither do they have any responsibility other than translating as they think best. To the modern authors, Vedas are just historic literature.

Anyway that is my opinion.

 

[Avinash]

Does somebody have authentic translation of Valmiki Ramayan?

Please let me know what the verse 33 of chapter 55 of Ayodhya kand says?

[ranjeetmore]

What nonsense is this ?

 

the tongues of these rascals need to be cut.

[ranjeetmore]

 

In a famous boom "Ramayana" by none other than Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari who was a spiritual companion of Mahatma Gandhi and a scholar, who was well versed in Sanskrit and English, the author has clearly stated that Rama ate meat and has also mentioned that people shivered at the very concept of Rama eating meat, which was a custom prevalent in those days. He also stated that he had Valmiki and Kambar Ramayana as two main books from where he had taken all the information. Many of my Vaishnava friend said that, it was the Rigveda period, when meat eating was quite a common thing. Though, personally I am still unable to accept it.

 

 

Bring anyone who thinks along the same lines to Rambhadracharyaji,the head of the Ramanandi Sampradya.He will teach him sense.

 

Those who think that Sri Rama ate meat....go to Rambhadrachrayaji....He will literally slap this nonsense out you,with Sastric proofs.. and not some cheap translations by cheap non-entities.

[ranjeetmore]

This 'spiritual' contemporary of Gandhiji has atleast another couple of billion years to wander through unimaginable hellish planets.

 

I'm hoping you keep on flinching and expressing outright rage at the mere thought of Sri Rama eating meat.

 

VALMIKI was a hunter.Meat eater.He chanted "Mara-mara-mara" becoz he couldn't even chant RAMA becoz of his sinful activities.

 

He got purified and became a sage.

So How can Sri Rama Eat meat?

There is a thing called common sense..........

[ranjeetmore]

 

It's not what goes into a person's mouth that makes him ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean.

 

Matthew 15:11

 

I was a meat eater.

 

Try this :

 

Eat all types of meat for 3 days.Watch what it does to your difestive system.I do not feel ashamed to say even this : Notice the horrendous odour of faeces.

 

then eat simple food.Pure vegetarian for 3 days.

Now,check for how you feel from inside.

The darkness and the lethargy goes away.

 

This is due to the inevitable mode of ignorance attached to meat eating.it is NOT DONE.

[bhaktatraveler]

 

Kings generally hunted under certain circumstances and offered the animals' flesh into the sacrificial fire. This was not for the purpose of eating.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with this as lacking in full information from our Guru. Srila Prabhupada does say a different thing in this conversation and throughout His books. In to many places.

 

Hridayananda: So in our varnasrama college the students that come to our college, they follow the four principles... They follow...

 

Prabhupada: Four principles essential. Essential. But only the sudras or the kshatriyas... Just like kshatriyas, they have to learn how to kill. So practically, they should go to the forest and kill some animal. And if he likes, he can eat also. If he likes, he can eat also.

 

Hridayananda: What he kills.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. But not from the slaughterhouse. Those who are kshatriyas, they can, they’re allowed sometimes to eat meat. It is understood Bhima, Bhima also eating sometimes meat. Bhima. Amongst the Pandavas, only Bhima. Not others. So if the kshatriyas, they want to eat meat, they can be allowed on particular occasions. But they must go to the forest and kill the animal. Not that for meat-eating regular slaughterhouses should be maintained. This is all nonsense, degradation. If you want to eat meat, you go to the forest. And the sudras, they also sometimes eat meat. Or the candalas.

 

Hridayananda: But never the cow.

 

Prabhupada: No. Cow... The sudras, they can take a goat and sacrifice before the deity, goddess Kali, and then eat. Nobody should be given unrestricted freedom to eat meat. Or wine. If one is adamant to drink wine, then there is Candi-puja, Durga-puja. That means restriction. That means restriction. Under certain condition. Similarly, sex life—marriage. That is also sex life, but under condition.(END)

 

Hare Krsna

 

RCB

[bhaktatraveler]

 

I have to respectfully disagree with this as lacking in full information from our Guru. Srila Prabhupada does say a different thing in this conversation and throughout His books. In to many places.

 

Hridayananda: So in our varnasrama college the students that come to our college, they follow the four principles... They follow...

 

Prabhupada: Four principles essential. Essential. But only the sudras or the kshatriyas... Just like kshatriyas, they have to learn how to kill. So practically, they should go to the forest and kill some animal. And if he likes, he can eat also. If he likes, he can eat also.

 

Hridayananda: What he kills.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. But not from the slaughterhouse. Those who are kshatriyas, they can, they’re allowed sometimes to eat meat. It is understood Bhima, Bhima also eating sometimes meat. Bhima. Amongst the Pandavas, only Bhima. Not others. So if the kshatriyas, they want to eat meat, they can be allowed on particular occasions. But they must go to the forest and kill the animal. Not that for meat-eating regular slaughterhouses should be maintained. This is all nonsense, degradation. If you want to eat meat, you go to the forest. And the sudras, they also sometimes eat meat. Or the candalas.

 

Hridayananda: But never the cow.

 

Prabhupada: No. Cow... The sudras, they can take a goat and sacrifice before the deity, goddess Kali, and then eat. Nobody should be given unrestricted freedom to eat meat. Or wine. If one is adamant to drink wine, then there is Candi-puja, Durga-puja. That means restriction. That means restriction. Under certain condition. Similarly, sex life—marriage. That is also sex life, but under condition.(END)

 

Hare Krsna

 

RCB

 

 

Here's another.....

 

SB. 6.4.9

 

TRANSLATION

By nature’s arrangement, fruits and flowers are considered the food of insects and birds; grass and other legless living entities are meant to be the food of four-legged animals like cows and buffalo; animals that cannot use their front legs as hands are meant to be the food of animals like tigers, which have claws; and four-legged animals like deer and goats, as well as food grains, are meant to be the food of human beings.

 

PURPORT

By nature’s law, or the arrangement of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one kind of living entity is eatable by other living entities. As mentioned herein, dvi-padam ca catush-padah: the four-legged animals (catush-padah), as well as food grains, are eatables for human beings (dvi-padam). These four-legged animals are those such as deer and goats, not cows, which are meant to be protected. Generally the men of the higher classes of society—the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas—do not eat meat. Sometimes kshatriyas go to the forest to kill animals like deer because they have to learn the art of killing, and sometimes they eat the animals also. Sudra's, too, eat animals such as goats. Cows, however, are never meant to be killed or eaten by human beings. In every sastra, cow killing is vehemently condemned. Indeed, one who kills a cow must suffer for as many years as there are hairs on the body of a cow. Manu-samhita says, pravrittir esha bhutanam nivrittis tu maha-phala: we have many tendencies in this material world, but in human life one is meant to learn how to curb those tendencies. Those who desire to eat meat may satisfy the demands of their tongues by eating lower animals, but they should never kill cows, who are actually accepted as the mothers of human society because they supply milk. The sastra especially recommends, krishi-go-rakshya: the vaisya section of humanity should arrange for the food of the entire society through agricultural activities and should give full protection to the cows, which are the most useful animals because they supply milk to human society.(END)

 

Hare Krsna

 

RCB

[hindustani]

5 pages of discussion here on What Lord Rama eat?

If any of you have spared 5 minutes and chanted Hare Rama it would be a fruitful rather than sparing your time in posting in 5 pages,I have NOT read any of the messages posted here and feel that its not worth reading what is written here.

[bhaktatraveler]

 

5 pages of discussion here on What Lord Rama eat?

If any of you have spared 5 minutes and chanted Hare Rama it would be a fruitful rather than sparing your time in posting in 5 pages,I have NOT read any of the messages posted here and feel that its not worth reading what is written here.

 

Actually most of what is posted by devotees on line is irrelivent to some degree or another. Even with in the context of progresive spiritual life. If our actions were anilized moment by moment we woud see a great deal of the mundain/profane. Just look at the way this thread goes on and on with no common ground/authority as to come to a conclution.

 

Did Rama eat or not? For me, if Srila rabhupada says one way or another. then that is that. That part of the discusion ends. He doesn't though say about Rama eating meat. It is nice to have a father/guru like Prabhupada.

 

Which brings us to you, why did you post?

 

I'm looking for devotees of Srila Prabhupada's DVD movement, and you?

 

Hare Krsna

 

RCB

[bhaktatraveler]

 

5 pages of discussion here on What Lord Rama eat?

If any of you have spared 5 minutes and chanted Hare Rama it would be a fruitful rather than sparing your time in posting in 5 pages,I have NOT read any of the messages posted here and feel that its not worth reading what is written here.

 

And you say you didn't read any message? Then why post!

 

RCB

[rahulhb]

No No No

[sunder]

It is not mentioned nowhere in our valuable scriptures.

1.Sage Valmiki had not mentioned nowhere in his Ramayana.

2.Sage Veda Vyas had not mentioned nowhere in his Mahabharat.

After Sage Valmiki,Sage Veda Vyas,most modern writers,spoiled our scriptures with their foolish intelligence with the help of britishers,because they given gifts to spoil our scriptures with the help our most modern writers.

Kings normally eating meat. It is not wrong.but most modern writers unnecessarily raised this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.