Did Rama eat Meat?

[Avinash]

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?

 

I just said that it is nowhere written in Ramacaritmanas that Rama used to hunt deer and give to his father for eating.

 

[mahak]

This topic is stupid. Rama can eat the whole world if he chooses to do so, without karma implication.

 

If Rama and Laxmana and Sita ate the deer they killed while in exile, does this mean that hot dogs, hamburgers, and kentucky fried chicken is okay?

 

get a life.

[talasiga]

Originally posted by mahak:

This topic is stupid. ......

get a life.

Yep !

 

But then .....

show me any topic

and I'll show you stupidity

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tarunji: Not Turkey. Not on Thanksgiving.

 

Satyaraj: You are right, as there is no mention of turkeys in India or even in Turkey. But what about peacock on Christmas?

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

But what about peacock on Christmas?

What about

SWALLOW your questions !

 

 

[sona]

I had been surfing the net and came across your site and discussion on the topic about Ram eating meat. Although I am a Hindu, and a believer in Ram, I am shamed to say I have not read upon the Ramayana, but I am a vegetarian and I think that all those people who say that Ram ate meat, must be meat eaters themselves and are trying "unconsciously" to hide their guilt of eating an innocent animal.

 

I can only agree with Mahakji for all those people, A stupid topic and yes Ram could eat up the world if he wanted to, therefore "Get a Life"!!!

 

[sona]

I had been surfing the net and came across your site and discussion on the topic about Ram eating meat. Although I am a Hindu, and a believer in Ram, I am shamed to say I have not read upon the Ramayana, but I am a vegetarian and I think that all those people who say that Ram ate meat, must be meat eaters themselves and are trying unconsciously to hide their guilt of eating an animal.

 

I can only agree with Mahakji for all those people, "A stupid topic" and yes "Ram could eat up the world if he wanted to", therefore "Get a Life"!!!

 

[karthik_v]

I just finished reading the Valmiki Ramayana (Sanskrit-English) of Gita press. I don't find one verse that states that Sri Rama ever ate meat. Similarly, many of the verse numbers quoted in cheap anti-Hindu sites either don't exist or imply something very different from what these sites claim.

 

The only place where the mention of meat is when Vali addresses Rama. Vali states that a cow has to be protected. He says that Brahmanas cannot harm other lives. Likewise, Kshatriyas cannot harm innocent people. Then Vali states that even the meat-eaters are restricted to consume only 5-clawed animals. Then he laments as to why Rama attacked him, a monkey.

 

By no stretch, can these verses be taken to mean that Rama ate meat. If any, it only reflects on the state of a society that held meat-eating in low esteem. Hope this settles the question.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

Dear Shri J.N.DAS,

I have read your interpretation of the Gomeda Yajna and found it satisfying. Can you please explain the Asvamedha Yajna likewise. I found some material Asvamedha Yajna in the internet and found it very very disturbing. I know it is not true but I need to know more about these Yajnas. Can you suggest me some good books on various kinds of Yajnas. I will be very delighted to read on these subjects and please suggest only Enlish books(I do not know Sanskrit).

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Dear Raghuram,

 

Sorry for the late reply. I had only now seen your message.

 

In regards to the Ashwamedha yajna, the following message gives the answer.

 

I know from reliable sources that there is mention of meat-eating in the Vedas.

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.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 12-23-2001).]

[anveshan]

 

DID RAMA EAT MEAT?

 

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. Likewise

there are several references in the Srutis

and Smritis about ancient Indians eating meat, bovine or otherwise.

 

One should understand that Sanatana Dharma is

not a religion, but a philosophy, an anveshan

and a guide to Ultimate Reality. It is most

liberal and tolerant of all paths to Realization. Whether Indians ate meat or are still eating it is not its theme. Similarly

it does not bar a person being monogamous,

polygamous or polyandrous. And if we study and analyse the Srutis and Smritis deeply,

we would understand the meaning of Brahmana

or Vipra or Dwija. Later, vested interests

converted it into a rigid caste system to

exploit others and the Brahmana-Kshatriya

coalition became an oligarchy.(Just as in the

days of Monasticism in Europe, the reading and study of Bible was barred to the common

people by the priestly and the feudal class.)

Jesus Christ or Christianity cannot be blamed

for that.

 

Likewise, idol worship. You may worship an idol or you may not. The Formless Ultimate

Reality is the Cause and Effect at the same time. Naturally he assumes material forms, including you and me. There were rationalists, atheists and pure matrialists

who contributed to the philosophy that is

Sanatana Dharma. You may worship even Jesus

Christ but Hinduism does not subscibe to the

theory that he is the "Only Son" and all others who do not follow him are pagans and

outcastes.

 

Sanatana Dharma is Eternal Values. Values that are Eternal, Increate and Without Attributes. To my mind that should be same to you and me. That is the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, and Sanatana Dharma only.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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.

If you had read this entire thread you will know that there are no such references as you claim. On the other hand there are dozens of references in Valmiki Ramayana that say Rama took the vow to eat only roots as the Rishis did.

 

Please don't post such rumors. If you have a verse from Valmiki Ramayana that shows Rama ate meat, then post it. Otherwise don't make such claims.

 

[Avinash]

I agree with jn das ji here. I have read Ramayana and did not see any verse that says that Sita was drying hare meat. In Sundar Kand it is written that Rama was eating fruits, bulbs, roots. But it does not mean that earier He used to eat meat.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Hey look, you're a member now, not a junior member. It took awhile.

 

[Avinash]

Talasiga ji,

Are you reading this? I have been promoted to Member from Junior Member.

 

All members of this forum,

eat some sweets from my side.

[shvu]

 

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.

 

Have you read this for yourself in a Valmiki Ramayana? If so, mention the publisher and verse number(s). That is the whole point here, whether there exists such a reference or not and so far no one has come up with one.

 

Cheers

 

[Avinash]

I would request everyone to please stick to the topic. We are discussing if there is any reference of Rama eating meat in Valmiki Ramayana. The discussion is not on whether there is reference to anybody eating meet in any of scriptures of Sanatana dharma. I am not saying that this topic is bad. But it is better to start a separate thread on it.

 

Some members are complaining that this topic is stupid because Rama eating or not eating meat is irrelevant. They say that He can eat the whole world if He wants. I agree that He can eat the whole world. In fact, He does eat the whole world as pointed out by j.n. das ji in the thread whose offshoot the present thread is. But I do not agree that this topic is stupid. To know if a topic is stupid we have to know as to how the topic started.

[laksri]

--------

I diagree with quote given :

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."

----------

I am giving the verse and rough translation to english based on N.A.GD Acharya's work for the purpose of information

 

na mAmsam rAgavO bunktE na sAbi madu sEvatE |

vanyam suvihitam nityam baktimsnAti pancamam ||

 

Sri-rAghava is not eating (mAmsam) fleshy portion of fruits. Not having (madu) honey too. Everyday at the 5th hour - between the 24th nazigai and 30th nazigai, the water prepared according to care [Acharam ] is used to boil the roots produced in the forest - and is had. There are 10 manmatha entanglements - And not interested in any - i.e. arati - eat to sustain his body and without liking.

 

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

This is from the Monier Williams Dictionary

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

Entry = mAMsa

 

Meaning n. sg. and pl. flesh , meat RV. &c. &c. (also said of the fleshy part or pulp of fruit Sus3r.) ; m. N. of a mixed caste MBh. (= %{mAMsa-vikretR} Ni1lak.) ; a worm L. ; time L. ; (%{I}) f. Nardostachys Jatamansi Var. Sus3r. ; = %{kakkolI} , f. ; = %{mAMsa-cchadA} L. [Cf. Slav. {meso} ; Pruss. {mensa} ; Lith. {mesa45.}]

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

 

 

[laksri]

Now, addressing the main issue at hand, I would like to quote from manu dharmasashtra who is rAmA's own ancestor. Let us see how a well versed hounourable king might understand, forget for a moment the ever caring personification of rAmA, who is the Lord of all beings alike. One of the highly regarded dharamasashtra tells in unabigous terms the need for abstinence, which king with control of his senses, in the lineage of sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pegion, would do. Please see the Chapter V from translations of G. Buhler.

 

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

 

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

 

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

 

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

 

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

 

53. He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

 

 

[shvu]

 

na mAmsam rAgavO bunktE na sAbi madu sEvatE |

 

Finally we got a verse.

 

mAmsam means flesh of animals or fruits.

madhu has a number of meanings including honey, a sweet drink, intoxicating drink, soma juice, etc.

 

I can understand someone abstaining from meat and intoxicating drinks, but I never heard of anyone abstaining from fruits and honey, especially while living in a forest. At least the way I see it, translating the words as meat and intoxicating drinks makes more sense to me.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

This verse makes it clear that the consumption of flesh by kings was only the remnants of sacrifice (yajna). Certain sacrifices required the offering of a particular animal in the fire, and both the king and priest were required to eat the flesh, thereby transfering the animal's karma to themselves and delivering that animal to a higher destination.

 

To eat the flesh of animals for one's own enjoyment or nutrition is the greatest sin. Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To claim that he engaged in sinful conduct is foolish.

 

[laksri]

Originally posted by shvu:

Finally we got a verse.

 

mAmsam means flesh of animals or fruits.

madhu has a number of meanings including honey, a sweet drink, intoxicating drink, soma juice, etc.

 

I can understand someone abstaining from meat and intoxicating drinks, but I never heard of anyone abstaining from fruits and honey, especially while living in a forest. At least the way I see it, translating the words as meat and intoxicating drinks makes more sense to me.

 

Cheers

 

 

Again from Manu Chapter II verse 177

 

"varjayen) madhu maaMsaM ca gandhaM maalyaM rasaan "

 

 

as "Let him abstain from sweet honey, juicy flesh of fruit, perfumes, garlands, aromic flavours" etc...

 

as the code of conduct during learning in Gurukulam. We may ask what do you expect to eat? The purport of the "life" at that stage is not for enjoyment and diversion. [Neither it is for depression,] it for deattachment, focus and contemplation.

 

So this is a very expected form of response or behaviour from sri rAghavA. Imagine yourself in center of forest anxiously searching for a missing wife, would you eat the best of foods available there ? Better not let your wife or would be know your attitude.

 

Coming back, our beloved purushOtamA is naturally very disheartened and is denying himself even the small joys of the forest. It is a very sad picture of "dettachment" by the sriyah patih, the possesor of all the wealth and greatness.

 

So "sollin chelvan" [kamba rAmAyanam] - master of words that sri mAruti was, must have put to use efficient use of such expressions to convey srirAghavA's feelings to sri sItA.

 

 

[This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-02-2002).]

[shvu]

Laksri,

 

Thanx. I was not aware vanavAsis also abstained from fruits, until now. Which is why I was more inclined to translate mAMsam as meat and vanyam (from the second line) to mean fruits & roots.

 

Interesting.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Bringing this thread back to the top.

[mark]

If I'm not mistaken, Rama hunted as well as Arjuna in the Mahabharata. Is this right?