laksri

I wish so too, why we should accept them as avataras ? but it not our option. If it is said so in the scriptures, then it is so. Let me quote from vishnupurAnA. Chapter XVII to show the creation of these people. "There was formerly a battle between gods and demons, for the period of a divine year, in which the gods were defeated by the demons under the command of Hrada." ....... [The gods go and pray to the glorious vishnu. They ask for his protection against the daityAs, who] "Engaged in the duties of their respective orders, and following the paths prescribed by shAstrA, praticing also religious penance, it is impossible for us to destroy them." ........ [When the mighty vishnu heard their request, he emitted from his body an illusory form, which he provided to the gods, and thus spake:" This deceptive [entity] shall wholly beguile the Daityas, so that, being led astray from the path of the shAstrAs, they may be put to death ......" ...... "daityas were seduced from their proper duties by the repeated lessons of their illusory perceptor, maintaining the equal truth of contradictory tenets" ....... "and in turn became teachers of the same heresis, and perverted others; and these, again, communicating their principles to other, by whom were still further disseminated, and shAstrAs were abandoned by many"

I wish so too, why we should accept them as avataras ? but it not our option. If it is said so in the scriptures, then it is so. Let me quote from vishnupurAnA. Chapter XVII to show the creation of these people. "There was formerly a battle between gods and demons, for the period of a divine year, in which the gods were defeated by the demons under the command of Hrada." ....... [The gods go and pray to the glorious vishnu. They ask for his protection against the daityAs, who] "Engaged in the duties of their respective orders, and following the paths prescribed by shAstrA, praticing also religious penance, it is impossible for us to destroy them." ........ [When the mighty vishnu heard their request, he emitted from his body an illusory form, which he provided to the gods, and thus spake:" This deceptive [entity] shall wholly beguile the Daityas, so that, being led astray from the path of the shAstrAs, they may be put to death ......" ...... "daityas were seduced from their proper duties by the repeated lessons of their illusory perceptor, maintaining the equal truth of contradictory tenets" ....... "and in turn became teachers of the same heresis, and perverted others; and these, again, communicating their principles to other, by whom were still further disseminated, and shAstrAs were abandoned by many"

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).]

This is a very important aspect. There are some important things for us to accept. We cannot say, o a Vigraha is made of this material and hence it is natural. This is where vaikAnasa and pAncharAtra comes in. Refer to pAncharAtra mentioned even in bhramasutra. If we accept for example pAncharAtra, then we have to know how and when the supreme god chooses to present himself for everybody as a deity. He comes 1) if proper procedure and innvocation is made to the vigraha made accroding to the rules of the sashtra. 2) present in inate form in shAligram, small smooth stones found in the gandaki river in nepal now. 3) in the hearts of pious who remember him 4) in places he chooses to be, especially in love with his most holy devotee. But this is only for people like prahalAdhan and our Acharyas, who have the such a beatiful relationship. That is the reason why we have shAligrama in the house altar, instead of photos or other such things. Also otherwise, let us say even if you are worthy to be pious, you see him where you choose him to be, but his not there for everybody, he will be there only for you. And such a situation is like being the heart of devotees, rather than being a common deity. When the supreme god comes either due to his own willingness or because he has said he would be willing if certain innvocations are made, then his aprakrita - not natural form takes over the subtley in the natural material. That is it is no more mere something. But he himself can choose to go whenevr he feels unrelated or unwanted. He goes if he feels the time has ended for devotees punyAs in this form in this place at this time. So you are right, supreme personality is always suddha-sattva and not common natural material,i.e. his presence is auspicious in matterial level as well and visible so to blessed souls in that physical divine divya mangala rupam. [This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-01-2002).] [This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-01-2002).]

I see lot of offshoots to this topic, but let us stay within the topic. There can be any number of ism, and schools of thought within it. But what is Hinduism first ? What is given to us by our AcharyAs is hinduism or the religion of the smrithis, srutis and ithAsams. So one has to accept these pramAnas to be a hindu. If you accept that then next comes the question of interpretation. We cannot come up with something, it has to be in line with our disciplinic succession starting with the supreme nArAyanA/vishnu/vAsudevA as our foremost teacher. given all these it does not matter much about the history of buddists or jainas,though 1) Adi buddhA and Adi thirtAnkara where amsa of vishnu 2) lot of populism and fashion was there at one time 3) actually, first the buddhist and later the jainas dominated the political support and theology from 5 BC - 12 A.D, in large parts of india from time to time is a historical fact. Now, whether such a religion started by our own Supreme master is acceptable to us. Whether his own words while said in bagavat gIta is accepted why not in buddism ? krsnA, out of his supreme mercy teaches us, that even if he himself teaches against his doctirnes in the smriti, sruti and the itihAs, then it is not for us. What is consistent with the scriptures only that we take and only that is his command. Let him bless us with ever merciful line of acaryas to show us the path of dharmA as thought by him to our masters.

I see lot of offshoots to this topic, but let us stay within the topic. There can be any number of ism, and schools of thought within it. But what is Hinduism first ? What is given to us by our AcharyAs is hinduism or the religion of the smrithis, srutis and ithAsams. So one has to accept these pramAnas to be a hindu. If you accept that then next comes the question of interpretation. We cannot come up with something, it has to be in line with our disciplinic succession starting with the supreme nArAyanA/vishnu/vAsudevA as our foremost teacher. given all these it does not matter much about the history of buddists or jainas,though 1) Adi buddhA and Adi thirtAnkara where amsa of vishnu 2) lot of populism and fashion was there at one time 3) actually, first the buddhist and later the jainas dominated the political support and theology from 5 BC - 12 A.D, in large parts of india from time to time is a historical fact. Now, whether such a religion started by our own Supreme master is acceptable to us. Whether his own words while said in bagavat gIta is accepted why not in buddism ? krsnA, out of his supreme mercy teaches us, that even if he himself teaches against his doctirnes in the smriti, sruti and the itihAs, then it is not for us. What is consistent with the scriptures only that we take and only that is his command. Let him bless us with ever merciful line of acaryas to show us the path of dharmA as thought by him to our masters.

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).

-------- 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.}] ===========================================