Did Rama eat Meat?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

 

 

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).]

[Guest guest]

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?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Thank you for reposting that.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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.

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.

[Guest guest]

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]

I just have a quick question.Are there any restrictions in shruti texts about those who can directly study shruti texts?

 

Just curious.

 

Thanks,

MC

[Guest guest]

 

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."

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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.

Congratulations, I salute your scholarship.

 

So, I had to choice which was the best one to translate according to a devotional mood.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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]

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?

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

 

[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.

 

I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas published by Gita Press, but did not find what you have mentioned. Anyway, I will read that again and get back to you. But I would appreciate it if you could post here the relevant verses (both Avadhi and English translation).

 

Can anybody else who has read Ramacaritmanas comment on this?

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

.....Ramayana ......

In the Ramayan

Some do find whatever they desire

Even Bhakti

 

 

[animesh]

I checked Balkanda, Ayodhyakanda and Aranyakanda of Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas once again and did not find a single verse in which He is shown to have eaten meat. But I found some verses which say that He ate bulbs, roots, fruits, milk, rice.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I noticed that while checking some of the claimed Valmiki Ramayana references that say Rama ate meat, some of them did not say meat at all, but the English translator chose to use the word "meat". To him food obviously meant meat, so when the text should have read "royal food" or something like that, He has put "meat".

 

[talasiga]

agreed with JN Das.

 

I wonder the how the portuguese translation would have handled such an english translation?

[Guest guest]

Jndas is correct in his assertive. In the Portuguese translation we had noticed this fact and we had employed the term 'delicious dishes,' never directely saying that Rama eats meat, as only some inferences on that issue can be done (or not).

 

Maybe next kartika I will be in India and I want to meet Sri Rambhadra Mj at Citrakut, who probably is the utmost authority in Ramacaritamanasa. I will ask him about this and them I will report his words. His personal blessings were the only cause of the Portuguese translation of Sri Ramacaritamanasa.

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jndas is correct in his [assertion]. In the Portuguese translation we had noticed this fact and we had employed the term 'delicious dishes,' never directely saying that Rama eats meat, as only some inferences on that issue can be [made] (or not).

 

Maybe next kartika I will be in India and I want to meet Sri Rambhadra Mj at Citrakut, who probably is the utmost authority in Ramacaritamanasa. I will ask him about this and them I will report his words. His personal blessings were the only cause of the Portuguese translation of Sri Ramacaritamanasa.

This is a very gentle answer

which informs strongly

and humbly

 

 

[Guru Prakash]

Originally posted by jndas:

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.

I am a devotee of Lord Rama. I have no question that Sri Rama ate meat. Aranyakanda Canto VII:13-24 Rama, Lakshmana and Sitha go to sage Suthikshna's hermitage. The sage is concerned that Rama may hunt abundant amount of deer present in the hermitage. Rama promises that he wouldn't kill the deer as that would insult the sage.

I

 

 

 

------------------

Prakash

[Guru Prakash]

Originally posted by 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.

 

I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas published by Gita Press, but did not find what you have mentioned. Anyway, I will read that again and get back to you. But I would appreciate it if you could post here the relevant verses (both Avadhi and English translation).

 

Can anybody else who has read Ramacaritmanas comment on this?

 

 

Khsatriyas whose duty is to protect humans, are allowed to hunt. Their work may call for killing human beings. If they have never killed even an animal, will they be able to kill humans?

 

 

 

------------------

Prakash

[Tarun]

Not Turkey. Not on Thanksgiving.

Not on JFK's disappearance anniversary. Never.