Jahnava Nitai Das

I said: And Satyaraj replied Please read the entire chapter. This text is speaking about different yajnas that may be performed for different results. Or maybe you thought that just by eating rice one will give birth to the perfect child? No, it doesn't say this. Go back to the google search and try again. Better yet, just read the entire chapter and not this single verse. You have a habit of coming to irrational conclusions based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and you often change directions very quickly. You should develop equanimity or at least gravity in analysis. Think about a dozen times from all angles of vision on a topic before blurting out your conclusion. This is the method of many acharyas, to first consider the view of the purvapakshi, to analyze this view, to come up with various doubts associated with one's own view, and then to establish the conclusion. Don't be too emotional and irrationally responsive. Don't respond just for the sake of responding. After being firmly situated in one's own understanding, after having analysed the views of the opposite side, after having raised doubts against your own stance, then answer them by presenting a conclusion devoid of personal emotions. It is not infered it is directly stated in the text. Please read the chapter as I have requested. I am sorry, but I dont have time to type it out for you at the moment. Also note the section on how to kill one's wife's lover (if she had one). The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done. There are detailed explainations on how to steal another man's wife, how to kill and overthrow the king, how to utilize black magic against people, etc. This is why the Vedas are known as kalpa-taru, they are like a desire tree of knowledge. Whatever you want, they have that information in them. If you want to perform evil activities, or destructive activities, they will provide you guidance on that as well. But to think that the message of the vedas has anything to do with such activities is foolish. That is why there is Vedanta, 'the end of knowledge', which is the Upanishads. For spiritual progress one must take shelter of the message of the Upanishads. Actually, even the apparently materialistic texts (karma-khanda portions) of the Vedas have very deep spiritual instructions encoded within them. But for that one needs to know the code of the Vedas. Others will just see the external meanings, an apparent sacrifice or activity, which has more or less no spiritual value. To such people the secret of the Vedas remains locked. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).]

If you had actually read any of the texts you had quoted, I would spend some time replying your statements. But that fact that you just did a search on the internet for "meat in hinduism", and copied a few quotes from a web site make me not value your input, at least not to the point of deserving a response. All the quotes you provided are available on a number of anti-hindu websites, along with the quotes from Ramayana (that never actually existed). In fact, the translations posted are word for word duplicates. This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. 'Serious' means taking books and studyinging, not spending 30 seconds doing a search on google to find a half-baked website that is about as scholary as the lint in my keyboard. If anyone is actually interested in the topic of gomedha-yajna I can suggest some books that deal solely with this topic.

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. I have heard such statements hundreds of times, but I have yet to locate the verses being referred to. I never came across them while reading it myself. I even have done searches on the internet to gather the various 'references' to these verses. But the funny thing is, when I look in the manuscript, they don't match. What they claim these verses say, and what is written has no connection at all, not even a bit. Perhaps you can locate some valid references, and I will check the verses to verify them. My understanding is that the Valmiki Ramayana does not say Rama ate meat, but another later Ramayana does. I know the Indonesian version of Ramayana says this, but that isn't surprising since they are not vegetarians.

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.

To make things even more complicated, there are several versions of "Valmiki" Ramayana today, which are very different from each other. For example I quoted in a previous post the same verse you referred here, and it isn't spoken by Hanuman, and it has absolutely nothing to do with food at all.

To make things even more complicated, there are several versions of "Valmiki" Ramayana today, which are very different from each other. For example I quoted in a previous post the same verse you referred here, and it isn't spoken by Hanuman, and it has absolutely nothing to do with food at all.

There are several editions of Ramayana that mention such things, but up till now I have not seen a version of Valmiki Ramayana that does, nor have I seen any traditional teacher state this (though they do say other versions of Ramayana mention this). Valmiki Ramayana is the authorized depiction of Sri Rama's pastimes. Other versions are the works of various sadhus, some authentic, some not. If the story does not find a basis in Valmiki Ramayana, then its authenticity may be questioned. As to whether or not Rama ate meat, it is irrelevant, after all, he eats the universes. But the point is whether or not this statement is based on authority or speculation. Some of the people here like to speculate a lot about there being different varieties of Hari (the nondual Hari, the Puranic Hari, the shruti Hari, the deer Hari, the dirt Hari, etc.). When they are repeatedly shown to have provided false evidence (and to have not even read the scriptures they are quoting), rather than admit they are wrong or that they have made a mistake, they continue with their game by ignoring it and posting some mental speculation about spontaneous bhakti. Such shameless people really need to find a sadhu, for only a sadhu can guide us properly in the traditional study of shastra. Rather than relying on Munishwara such and such and his UNESCO printing press, better to find a guru. It won't be as easy as buying a book, but it is necessary for attaining Hari. Thats the instruction of Vallabha, and thats the instruction of every Vaishnava acharya. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-12-2001).]

There are several editions of Ramayana that mention such things, but up till now I have not seen a version of Valmiki Ramayana that does, nor have I seen any traditional teacher state this (though they do say other versions of Ramayana mention this). Valmiki Ramayana is the authorized depiction of Sri Rama's pastimes. Other versions are the works of various sadhus, some authentic, some not. If the story does not find a basis in Valmiki Ramayana, then its authenticity may be questioned. As to whether or not Rama ate meat, it is irrelevant, after all, he eats the universes. But the point is whether or not this statement is based on authority or speculation. Some of the people here like to speculate a lot about there being different varieties of Hari (the nondual Hari, the Puranic Hari, the shruti Hari, the deer Hari, the dirt Hari, etc.). When they are repeatedly shown to have provided false evidence (and to have not even read the scriptures they are quoting), rather than admit they are wrong or that they have made a mistake, they continue with their game by ignoring it and posting some mental speculation about spontaneous bhakti. Such shameless people really need to find a sadhu, for only a sadhu can guide us properly in the traditional study of shastra. Rather than relying on Munishwara such and such and his UNESCO printing press, better to find a guru. It won't be as easy as buying a book, but it is necessary for attaining Hari. Thats the instruction of Vallabha, and thats the instruction of every Vaishnava acharya. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-12-2001).]

Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" you posted to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat: Why is it irrational? Because there is no such thing as a verse Ramayana 2:20. The Ramayana is divided into cantos, chapters, and verses; there needs to be three indicators to identify a verse. But you don't spend the 30 seconds to even look at a Ramayana, you just blindly take it as absolute authority. This verse is quoted on dozens of anti-hindu sites to prove that Rama ate meat. But it only convinces foolish people who have never read the scriptures. Like this there are around 10 or 20 other verses claimed to be from the Ramayana that in reality do not exist. Since most people won't take the time to verify, they feel they can just make up a verse and pass it off as authentic. To me, anyone who accepts such evidence without verifying it is coming to an irrational conclusion, more so if they then try to propagate such ignorance as truth.

Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" you posted to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat: Why is it irrational? Because there is no such thing as a verse Ramayana 2:20. The Ramayana is divided into cantos, chapters, and verses; there needs to be three indicators to identify a verse. But you don't spend the 30 seconds to even look at a Ramayana, you just blindly take it as absolute authority. This verse is quoted on dozens of anti-hindu sites to prove that Rama ate meat. But it only convinces foolish people who have never read the scriptures. Like this there are around 10 or 20 other verses claimed to be from the Ramayana that in reality do not exist. Since most people won't take the time to verify, they feel they can just make up a verse and pass it off as authentic. To me, anyone who accepts such evidence without verifying it is coming to an irrational conclusion, more so if they then try to propagate such ignorance as truth.

I said: And Satyaraj replied Please read the entire chapter. This text is speaking about different yajnas that may be performed for different results. Or maybe you thought that just by eating rice one will give birth to the perfect child? No, it doesn't say this. Go back to the google search and try again. Better yet, just read the entire chapter and not this single verse. You have a habit of coming to irrational conclusions based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and you often change directions very quickly. You should develop equanimity or at least gravity in analysis. Think about a dozen times from all angles of vision on a topic before blurting out your conclusion. This is the method of many acharyas, to first consider the view of the purvapakshi, to analyze this view, to come up with various doubts associated with one's own view, and then to establish the conclusion. Don't be too emotional and irrationally responsive. Don't respond just for the sake of responding. After being firmly situated in one's own understanding, after having analysed the views of the opposite side, after having raised doubts against your own stance, then answer them by presenting a conclusion devoid of personal emotions. It is not infered it is directly stated in the text. Please read the chapter as I have requested. I am sorry, but I dont have time to type it out for you at the moment. Also note the section on how to kill one's wife's lover (if she had one). The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done. There are detailed explainations on how to steal another man's wife, how to kill and overthrow the king, how to utilize black magic against people, etc. This is why the Vedas are known as kalpa-taru, they are like a desire tree of knowledge. Whatever you want, they have that information in them. If you want to perform evil activities, or destructive activities, they will provide you guidance on that as well. But to think that the message of the vedas has anything to do with such activities is foolish. That is why there is Vedanta, 'the end of knowledge', which is the Upanishads. For spiritual progress one must take shelter of the message of the Upanishads. Actually, even the apparently materialistic texts (karma-khanda portions) of the Vedas have very deep spiritual instructions encoded within them. But for that one needs to know the code of the Vedas. Others will just see the external meanings, an apparent sacrifice or activity, which has more or less no spiritual value. To such people the secret of the Vedas remains locked.

I said: And Satyaraj replied Please read the entire chapter. This text is speaking about different yajnas that may be performed for different results. Or maybe you thought that just by eating rice one will give birth to the perfect child? No, it doesn't say this. Go back to the google search and try again. Better yet, just read the entire chapter and not this single verse. You have a habit of coming to irrational conclusions based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and you often change directions very quickly. You should develop equanimity or at least gravity in analysis. Think about a dozen times from all angles of vision on a topic before blurting out your conclusion. This is the method of many acharyas, to first consider the view of the purvapakshi, to analyze this view, to come up with various doubts associated with one's own view, and then to establish the conclusion. Don't be too emotional and irrationally responsive. Don't respond just for the sake of responding. After being firmly situated in one's own understanding, after having analysed the views of the opposite side, after having raised doubts against your own stance, then answer them by presenting a conclusion devoid of personal emotions. It is not infered it is directly stated in the text. Please read the chapter as I have requested. I am sorry, but I dont have time to type it out for you at the moment. Also note the section on how to kill one's wife's lover (if she had one). The Vedic texts (especially Arthava Veda) contain all kowledge known toman, both good and bad. The fact that an information is provided is not a recomendation that it be done. There are detailed explainations on how to steal another man's wife, how to kill and overthrow the king, how to utilize black magic against people, etc. This is why the Vedas are known as kalpa-taru, they are like a desire tree of knowledge. Whatever you want, they have that information in them. If you want to perform evil activities, or destructive activities, they will provide you guidance on that as well. But to think that the message of the vedas has anything to do with such activities is foolish. That is why there is Vedanta, 'the end of knowledge', which is the Upanishads. For spiritual progress one must take shelter of the message of the Upanishads. Actually, even the apparently materialistic texts (karma-khanda portions) of the Vedas have very deep spiritual instructions encoded within them. But for that one needs to know the code of the Vedas. Others will just see the external meanings, an apparent sacrifice or activity, which has more or less no spiritual value. To such people the secret of the Vedas remains locked.

We have just launched a search engine called 'DragonSearch' for sites related to eastern philosophy and religion. The main focus will be Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, as well as some general categories like natural healing, art and eastern culture. The address for it is: http://links.indiadivine.com/ If you run a website, please take a minute to submit it to one of the categories. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-10-2001).]

ye tv anevaM-vido 'santaH stabdhAh sad-abhimAninaH pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH pretya khAdanti te ca tAn "Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." Bhagavata Purana 11.5.15

ye tv anevaM-vido 'santaH stabdhAh sad-abhimAninaH pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH pretya khAdanti te ca tAn "Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." Bhagavata Purana 11.5.15

Yet all of these people followed the principles of dharma. Maybe there is a leson to be learned.

Yet all of these people followed the principles of dharma. Maybe there is a leson to be learned.

Jagat said: And SHVU replied: You misread Jagats statement. He never said Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti, he said "Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way as Satyaraj thinks they do or should do." Or in other words, Vaishnavas accept Shuti in a way different from how Satyaraj thinks they do. And go back a little further in time, the indians were carrying clubs, beating dinasaurs over the head, and living in caves. That was before they discovered fire of course.

Jagat said: And SHVU replied: You misread Jagats statement. He never said Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti, he said "Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti in the same way as Satyaraj thinks they do or should do." Or in other words, Vaishnavas accept Shuti in a way different from how Satyaraj thinks they do. And go back a little further in time, the indians were carrying clubs, beating dinasaurs over the head, and living in caves. That was before they discovered fire of course.

To give a slightly more serious answer, the cow is known as 'aghnya', or that which can not be killed. In the Veda's samhitas (which are available today), this term is used to indicate cows over 70 times. Sometimes the word 'cow' is used to refer to products of the cow, such as milk, butter, ghee, yoghurt,etc. Thus there are some verses that apparently refer to the meat of a cow, which in reality do not refer to that at all. There is an authorized system of gomedha yajna in the vedas, but this also has little to do with killing a cow. Sripada Madhvacharya establishes this clearly in his commentaries to Srimad Bhagavatam as follows: yajneshv alabhanam proktam devatoddeshatah pashoh himsa nama tad-anyatra tasmat tam nacared vudhah yato yajne mrita urdhvam yanti deve ca paitrike ato labhad alabhanam svargasya na tu maranam The vedas describe certain sacrifices to God that involve the offering of animals, but such offerings are not himsa (violence). If animals are killed for any other purpose, without rigidly following the Vedic injunctions, such killing is violence and should not be accepted by any intelligent person. In the sacrifice, the animal is immediately promoted to the heavenly planets, and this is visibly seen by the participants, thereby demostrating the efficacy of vedic mantras. It is not the killing of an animal. This requires a proper study, and won't be learnt from the google search. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-10-2001).]

To give a slightly more serious answer, the cow is known as 'aghnya', or that which can not be killed. In the Veda's samhitas (which are available today), this term is used to indicate cows over 70 times. Sometimes the word 'cow' is used to refer to products of the cow, such as milk, butter, ghee, yoghurt,etc. Thus there are some verses that apparently refer to the meat of a cow, which in reality do not refer to that at all. There is an authorized system of gomedha yajna in the vedas, but this also has little to do with killing a cow. Sripada Madhvacharya establishes this clearly in his commentaries to Srimad Bhagavatam as follows: yajneshv alabhanam proktam devatoddeshatah pashoh himsa nama tad-anyatra tasmat tam nacared vudhah yato yajne mrita urdhvam yanti deve ca paitrike ato labhad alabhanam svargasya na tu maranam The vedas describe certain sacrifices to God that involve the offering of animals, but such offerings are not himsa (violence). If animals are killed for any other purpose, without rigidly following the Vedic injunctions, such killing is violence and should not be accepted by any intelligent person. In the sacrifice, the animal is immediately promoted to the heavenly planets, and this is visibly seen by the participants, thereby demostrating the efficacy of vedic mantras. It is not the killing of an animal. This requires a proper study, and won't be learnt from the google search. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-10-2001).]

Seeing how little effort was put into gathering quotes and context regarding the eating of meat in the scriptures, I choose to reply with an equally insincere effort. Here are some quotes from Hinduism Today. Those that know my personal judgment of Hinduism Today can understand how much respect I must have for the google search research done by some forum members. I wonder what Vallabhacharya said on this topic? Maybe he was eating cows like we are told the rest of the Rishis were doing? Anyway, on with Hinduism Today!

Seeing how little effort was put into gathering quotes and context regarding the eating of meat in the scriptures, I choose to reply with an equally insincere effort. Here are some quotes from Hinduism Today. Those that know my personal judgment of Hinduism Today can understand how much respect I must have for the google search research done by some forum members. I wonder what Vallabhacharya said on this topic? Maybe he was eating cows like we are told the rest of the Rishis were doing? Anyway, on with Hinduism Today!

If you had actually read any of the texts you had quoted, I would spend some time replying your statements. But that fact that you just did a search on the internet for "meat in hinduism", and copied a few quotes from a web site make me not value your input, at least not to the point of deserving a response. All the quotes you provided are available on a number of anti-hindu websites, along with the quotes from Ramayana (that never actually existed). In fact, the translations posted are word for word duplicates. This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. 'Serious' means taking books and studyinging, not spending 30 seconds doing a search on google to find a half-baked website that is about as scholary as the lint in my keyboard. If anyone is actually interested in the topic of gomedha-yajna I can suggest some books that deal solely with this topic.

If you had actually read any of the texts you had quoted, I would spend some time replying your statements. But that fact that you just did a search on the internet for "meat in hinduism", and copied a few quotes from a web site make me not value your input, at least not to the point of deserving a response. All the quotes you provided are available on a number of anti-hindu websites, along with the quotes from Ramayana (that never actually existed). In fact, the translations posted are word for word duplicates. This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure. 'Serious' means taking books and studyinging, not spending 30 seconds doing a search on google to find a half-baked website that is about as scholary as the lint in my keyboard. If anyone is actually interested in the topic of gomedha-yajna I can suggest some books that deal solely with this topic.