rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8

[Guest guest]

Sri MGV has written"MGV's comments: It is sroutha – means a vedic rites or rituals - as per vedhaas – can take it as 'yagnaas'. Other is 'smaartha karmaa' – which is a 'memorial service' – 'remembering and doing certain rites – can take it as sraardham – which is in memory of those who passed away. Smaranam – means remembering –leading to smaartha" Anbil's comments:"Sruti" means Veda (That which was heard)."Smriti" means (that which is remembered) It includes all other scriptures like Itihasa, Purana etc which help us in remembering what is contained in the Vedas. This does not primarily relate to "Sraddha" karmas that are "memorial service" to Pitrus. The elaboration on offering meat during Sraddhas may not be necessary while dealing with "Rams's food habits" which is the sujubject matter of this series.Anyway, we welcomed Sri MGV's postings because they provide lots of "food for thought"!

 

But, sorry.

NO further mails in this series will be approved, if they have no direct bearing on

"rama's food habits"

And, let me add: These postings may not be taken as springboard for discussions in "Sri Ranga Sri" which is NOT the forum for debates and discussions. If need be, further clarifications may be sought from Sri MGV himself by personal and private mails. Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.DasohamAnbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

Respected Bhagavathas,

 

Adiyen's humble pranams to every one of you.

 

Adiyen requests Sri Anbil swamy and Sri MGV swamy not to consider this

mail as an intrusion.

Adiyen, as a regular reader of Sri MGV's posts, was a bit disappointed

with the series on Rama's food habits, as hardly there was any

information on what Rama ate but rather the series seemed to focus on

whether Rama could have eaten meat!!

 

The following is adiyen's simple logic derived from different sources.

 

# If meat eating is forbidden on grounds of Himsa, then Rama could

not have eaten meat!

 

Himsa is allowed to some extent in Sanatana dhrma, though it is

claimed in Mahabharatha that Ahimsa is parama dharmam.

The very act of Bhagawan to protect his devotees (sishta

paripaalanam), happens with 'dhushta nigraham'- otherwise why should

bhagawan weild multiple weapons in almost all the postures He takes

up. So Himsa is for protection for dharma sthaapanam, not for

satiating a physical need or pleasure.

 

Bhagawan allows himsa on another account also - for a vedic purpose,

as told in the concluding verse of Chandokya upanishad (he " who

practises non-injury (ahimsa) to all beings except in places specially

ordained " by scriptures). This is what is found in the ParNa-shaala

entry epidode in Aranya khandam in Valmiki Ramayanam. The deer meat

was offered to the Devathas as part of the yajna done by Rama. The

same chapter also contains references to worship to other devathas,

which need to be understood in the light of Sri Nampillai's

explanation that it is alright to conduct any homa provided it is so

ordained by the vedas (veda vidhi). The meat offering is as per veda

vidhi and so it is not to be confused with whether Rama ate meat.

 

 

The inference derived from the above is that

 

(1) himsa is allowed only if it is required by a veda vidhi and it

stops with that. There is no veda vidhi ( as far as adiyen had heard)

that the meat offered must be eaten by the performer of the yajna. The

performers might have eaten, but my question is whether a vedic

dictum exists that the performers must eat what is offered.

 

(2) Himsa is allowed in sishta nigraham - only with reference to

bhagawan , and not even with ordinary people. An ordinary person can

not harm an offender, however worst his offence may be, but can only

hand him over to the Police for the established court to give

punishment by way of judgement. Only Bahgawan is entitled to kill or

pardon the people, as He is the Highest authority. Dhushta nigraham is

his previlage, not ours. So in this respect too, if it is argued how

could Rama have ordered the killing of a deer in that particular

episode, the only probable reply is that He is entitled to do it. As

the Supreme authority, it is fully within His right to place such an

order.

 

So there is no scope to think that Rama had eaten the meat offered.

Valmiki, who usually gives a detiled description also had not

mentioned that he ate the meat offered. That makes it obvious that

Rama did not eat meat.

 

# If meat eating is forbidden for one in spiritual path, then Rama

could not have eaten meat. ( Chandokhya upanishad and Bhagavad Gita

are ample sources on how a person on satwic mode of spiritual

evolution / path must desist from meat eating. )

There is no need to quote verses from Valmiki Ramayan on how Rama is a

sattwic worshipper and a vedic gyani. Such a person can not have

touched meat.

 

# If meat eating is allowed only under extraordinary and extreme

circumstances ( as indicated in Brahma sutras), then Rama had not

eaten meat. Even in the worst period of moving around the forest in

search of Sita, Rama either abstained from eating anything, or ate

only the fruits and vegetables like a vaanaprastha (Sundhara khnadam -

in Hanuman's words)

 

From another angle too, let adiyen analyse this issue.

 

As per Karma - theory, meat eating results in paapam for 3 persons,

the one who hunts the animal, the one who kills / sells and the one

who eats.

In the case of eater, the manifestation of the result of paapam

happens by way of painful loss of limbs or maiming of limbs / organs.

In those days the Kshathriyas ate meat to body-build and as a result

of the paapam, they used to undergo suffering in the same birth in the

battles they fought. The justification for meat eating was there and

the karma also got more or less cancelled.

 

Such a karma does not bind Raman, the Bhagawan. The need to eat meat

does not exist for Him nor the need to cancel the karma in the war.

Even in the war in Janasthaanam, the bleedding Rama was not said to

have undergone pain, but was cooled by Sita's embrace!

 

To conclude, Bhagawan, as the Ultimate authority in yajnas, had

accepted offerings done by himsa. He is the Digestive Fire (Bhagavad

Gita) and eats, accepts, engulfs, swalllows even the worlds.

But he as avathara, has only accepted phalam, patram, pushpam etc.

Anything contradictory to this is hardly found in Valmiki Ramayana

that concludes with Pattabhishekam.

Adiyen thinks that if any contradictory information is there, it must

either be an interpolation or can be justifiable in the context as per

vedic dictums.

Because Raman, a sattwic manifestation to the core can not be

associated with things abhorable.

 

Kindly pardon me for mistakes in this mail.

 

dasan,

Manivannan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Ram Anbil <Ramanbil wrote:

>

>

> Sri MGV has written " MGV's comments: It is sroutha – means a vedic

rites or rituals - as per vedhaas – can take it as 'yagnaas'. Other is

'smaartha karmaa' – which is a 'memorial service' – 'remembering and

doing certain rites – can take it as sraardham – which is in memory of

those who passed away. Smaranam – means remembering –leading to

smaartha " Anbil's comments: " Sruti " means Veda (That which was

heard). " Smriti " means (that which is remembered) It includes all other

scriptures like Itihasa, Purana etc which help us in remembering what

is contained in the Vedas. This does not primarily relate to " Sraddha "

karmas that are " memorial service " to Pitrus. The elaboration on

offering meat during Sraddhas may not be necessary while dealing with

" Rams's food habits " which is the sujubject matter of this

series.Anyway, we welcomed Sri MGV's postings because they provide

lots of " food for thought " !

>

> But, sorry.

> NO further mails in this series will be approved, if they have no

direct bearing on

> " rama's food habits "

> And, let me add: These postings may not be taken as springboard

for discussions in " Sri Ranga Sri " which is NOT the forum for debates

and discussions. If need be, further clarifications may be sought from

Sri MGV himself by personal and private mails. Thank you for your

understanding and co-operation.DasohamAnbil Ramaswamy

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Bhagwatas

Hari OM,

 

 

I am glad someone out there was able to comment and look at this topic contextually.

 

My personal feeling is that if these sort of preaching goes out there in the public, Sanatan Dharma is then subjected to ridicule and claims of hypocrisy..

 

All these Posts on Rama's eating Habits is contradictory to Bhagwad Gita and Shri-Mad bhagwatam according to my understand and according to the Acharyas of all other Sampradays and sects I have come across.

 

When I inquired with Guru Maharaj....ShrI ShrI Ananta Shri Vibhishita ShrI RamanandaCharya ShrI Ramaeshwaranandacharya about the claims of Meat-eating in Sanatan Dharma, he was most surprised and amused of the claims and statements...

 

 

One can bring quotes from everywhere and be so proud to present facts in the knowledged way...but the " dharma Saar " is lost...

There is a difference between Dharma and Dharma Saar...essence of riteousness.

 

One may like to refer to the story of Vipra-patni from 10 Canto in Sri-mad Bhagwatam. The vipras were practising Dharma..but had no dharma saar, as a result they were so proud and even offended Krishna.

 

Please pardon my offences....

Its just that every post on this matter made me think that in this Kaliyuga as per Srimad Bhagwatam, the essence of shAstra will be lost due to inappropriate preaching and translation.

 

Dasoham

On 10/24/07, man_v_2005 <manv2005 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Respected Bhagavathas,Adiyen's humble pranams to every one of you.Adiyen requests Sri Anbil swamy and Sri MGV swamy not to consider thismail as an intrusion.Adiyen, as a regular reader of Sri MGV's posts, was a bit disappointed

with the series on Rama's food habits, as hardly there was anyinformation on what Rama ate but rather the series seemed to focus onwhether Rama could have eaten meat!!The following is adiyen's simple logic derived from different sources.

# If meat eating is forbidden on grounds of Himsa, then Rama couldnot have eaten meat!Himsa is allowed to some extent in Sanatana dhrma, though it isclaimed in Mahabharatha that Ahimsa is parama dharmam.

The very act of Bhagawan to protect his devotees (sishtaparipaalanam), happens with 'dhushta nigraham'- otherwise why shouldbhagawan weild multiple weapons in almost all the postures He takesup. So Himsa is for protection for dharma sthaapanam, not for

satiating a physical need or pleasure. Bhagawan allows himsa on another account also - for a vedic purpose,as told in the concluding verse of Chandokya upanishad (he " whopractises non-injury (ahimsa) to all beings except in places specially

ordained " by scriptures). This is what is found in the ParNa-shaalaentry epidode in Aranya khandam in Valmiki Ramayanam. The deer meatwas offered to the Devathas as part of the yajna done by Rama. The

same chapter also contains references to worship to other devathas,which need to be understood in the light of Sri Nampillai'sexplanation that it is alright to conduct any homa provided it is soordained by the vedas (veda vidhi). The meat offering is as per veda

vidhi and so it is not to be confused with whether Rama ate meat.The inference derived from the above is that (1) himsa is allowed only if it is required by a veda vidhi and itstops with that. There is no veda vidhi ( as far as adiyen had heard)

that the meat offered must be eaten by the performer of the yajna. Theperformers might have eaten, but my question is whether a vedicdictum exists that the performers must eat what is offered.(2) Himsa is allowed in sishta nigraham - only with reference to

bhagawan , and not even with ordinary people. An ordinary person cannot harm an offender, however worst his offence may be, but can onlyhand him over to the Police for the established court to givepunishment by way of judgement. Only Bahgawan is entitled to kill or

pardon the people, as He is the Highest authority. Dhushta nigraham ishis previlage, not ours. So in this respect too, if it is argued howcould Rama have ordered the killing of a deer in that particularepisode, the only probable reply is that He is entitled to do it. As

the Supreme authority, it is fully within His right to place such anorder.So there is no scope to think that Rama had eaten the meat offered.Valmiki, who usually gives a detiled description also had not

mentioned that he ate the meat offered. That makes it obvious thatRama did not eat meat.# If meat eating is forbidden for one in spiritual path, then Ramacould not have eaten meat. ( Chandokhya upanishad and Bhagavad Gita

are ample sources on how a person on satwic mode of spiritualevolution / path must desist from meat eating. )There is no need to quote verses from Valmiki Ramayan on how Rama is asattwic worshipper and a vedic gyani. Such a person can not have

touched meat.# If meat eating is allowed only under extraordinary and extremecircumstances ( as indicated in Brahma sutras), then Rama had noteaten meat. Even in the worst period of moving around the forest in

search of Sita, Rama either abstained from eating anything, or ateonly the fruits and vegetables like a vaanaprastha (Sundhara khnadam -in Hanuman's words)From another angle too, let adiyen analyse this issue.

As per Karma - theory, meat eating results in paapam for 3 persons,the one who hunts the animal, the one who kills / sells and the onewho eats.In the case of eater, the manifestation of the result of paapam

happens by way of painful loss of limbs or maiming of limbs / organs.In those days the Kshathriyas ate meat to body-build and as a resultof the paapam, they used to undergo suffering in the same birth in the

battles they fought. The justification for meat eating was there andthe karma also got more or less cancelled.Such a karma does not bind Raman, the Bhagawan. The need to eat meatdoes not exist for Him nor the need to cancel the karma in the war.

Even in the war in Janasthaanam, the bleedding Rama was not said tohave undergone pain, but was cooled by Sita's embrace!To conclude, Bhagawan, as the Ultimate authority in yajnas, hadaccepted offerings done by himsa. He is the Digestive Fire (Bhagavad

Gita) and eats, accepts, engulfs, swalllows even the worlds.But he as avathara, has only accepted phalam, patram, pushpam etc.Anything contradictory to this is hardly found in Valmiki Ramayanathat concludes with Pattabhishekam.

Adiyen thinks that if any contradictory information is there, it musteither be an interpolation or can be justifiable in the context as pervedic dictums.Because Raman, a sattwic manifestation to the core can not be

associated with things abhorable.Kindly pardon me for mistakes in this mail.dasan,Manivannan

, Ram Anbil <Ramanbil wrote:>> > Sri MGV has written " MGV's comments: It is sroutha – means a vedicrites or rituals - as per vedhaas – can take it as 'yagnaas'. Other is

'smaartha karmaa' – which is a 'memorial service' – 'remembering anddoing certain rites – can take it as sraardham – which is in memory ofthose who passed away. Smaranam – means remembering –leading to

smaartha " Anbil's comments: " Sruti " means Veda (That which washeard). " Smriti " means (that which is remembered) It includes all otherscriptures like Itihasa, Purana etc which help us in remembering what

is contained in the Vedas. This does not primarily relate to " Sraddha " karmas that are " memorial service " to Pitrus. The elaboration onoffering meat during Sraddhas may not be necessary while dealing with

" Rams's food habits " which is the sujubject matter of thisseries.Anyway, we welcomed Sri MGV's postings because they providelots of " food for thought " !> > But, sorry. > NO further mails in this series will be approved, if they have nodirect bearing on > " rama's food habits " > And, let me add: These postings may not be taken as springboardfor discussions in " Sri Ranga Sri " which is NOT the forum for debates

and discussions. If need be, further clarifications may be sought fromSri MGV himself by personal and private mails. Thank you for yourunderstanding and co-operation.DasohamAnbil Ramaswamy>

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamin,

 

 

>>......Bhagavad Gita are ample sources on how a person on satwic mode of

spiritual

evolution / path must desist from meat eating. )<<

 

I just completed translating Bhagavadgita. Could you please give me

in your so called ample, at least one reference in Bhagavadgita to support

your bold conclusion above.

 

dAsan

 

K.S. tAtAchAr

[Guest guest]

Respected Tatachar swamin,

 

Adiyen's humble pranams.

 

" As is food , so is the mind " - is the basis for the claim on sattwic

food. (A lot more has been said by our acharyas on aahaara niyamam

which is about vegetarianism. But adiyen is giving the clues from Gita

only, as asked by Tatachar swamin.)

 

The foremost proof from the Gita is this:

 

The Lord says only about sattwic food even for Himself - " whosoever

offers to me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, that

offering of love, of the pure heart I accept " (9-26)

The sattwic food is that which is available in nature and doesnot require elaborate preparation, leave alone killing.

 

Verses 17-7 onwards in Bhagavad Gita give details on vegetarianism for a sattwic nature

 

" Ahaarasthvapi.. " (17-7)- (even the food) Though the verses from

this onwards talk about the food liked by the people of the 3 gunas, it

is obvious that the Lord means to say that the food also plays a role

in the kind of guna they get to have.

 

( " aahaara shuddhau sattwa shuddhi: " - 7-26-2 chandokhya.

" For, my dear, the mind consists of food " 6-5-4- chando.

" when the food is pure, the man becomes pure " 7-26-2, chando)

 

Such a food is (17-7)

 

" rasya " - obviously from milk, sugar etc.

 

" snighdha " -oil from milk and vegetable product (here it must be

said that the feelings of the cow when milk is drawn also influences

the drinker of such milk. It is said that (this is from Gita press,

gorahkpur edition) a dog is allowed to run after a calf before before a

cow is milked.The cow grows angry on seeing this.That milk is offered

to soldiers so that they may become cruel. Then one can imagine what

guna will spring in one who eats meat, made from a terrified animal

dying in pain and suffering)

 

" sthira " - substantial and stay in the body for long to give energy.

 

" hrudhya " - appear beautiful to eyes.

 

Further analysis of this and the next 2 verses establish that the

characteristic of the source of the food get transformed into

guna.

 

Particular reference is to verse 17-10 which mentions " amedhyam " as the food of tamasic people.

 

It is described (in Gorahkpur edition) as that which is impure owing to association with impure, evil and adharmic acts.

Such food is got through himsa.

It is obvious that this refers to meat and eggs.

 

Again in verse 17-17 , three types of 'tapas' are said of sattwic people.

 

Such a tapas includes " ahimsa " (17-14)

But that which results in " peedya " (harm) to others is for tamasic people. So certainly meat eating is not for sattwic nature.

 

The types of tapas mentioned in verses 17-- 14,15,16 & 17 are in a

nutshell about the 4 legs of Dharma. satyam, daya, shanthi and ahimsa -

which are said to get reduced with the progression of yugas. In this

order, Ahimsa is the parama dharma of kali yuga. That is why even

animal sacrifices in yajnas whcih are supported by vedic vidhi

are FORBIDDEN in this yuga. Then it goes without saying that

eating meat is also FORBIDDEN for everyone.

Brihath dharma Puranam gives details of what this ahimsa is all about. (purva khandam, 1-47)

Ahimsa is 7-fold.

 

Of this the final one is " sarvathra aathma buddhi: paraathmasu " - to

treat all life as one's own - that is, not to harm any life.

 

Respected Tatachar swamin, please dont think I am straying out of Gita.

The defintion of what the Lord says as ahimsa in verse 17-14 is

explained from this text which has given details of all the 4 dharmas

of 4 yugas..

 

dasan,

Manivannan

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/26/07, Tatachar <Tatachar wrote:

 

Dear Swamin,

 

 

>>......Bhagavad Gita are ample sources on how a person on satwic mode of spiritual

evolution / path must desist from meat eating. )<<

 

I just completed translating Bhagavadgita. Could you please give me

in your so called ample, at least one reference in Bhagavadgita to support

your bold conclusion above.

 

dAsan

 

K.S. tAtAchAr

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamin,

 

Thanks for your protracted conclusions.

While BG mentions spicy, salty for Rajasik food,

it never said meat is this or that.

We should never restrict that.

BG is a universal philosophy

and we should get out of our koop amaNDukam

and agrahaaram mentality.

 

 

Let us learn from BG and not add to it.

 

 

Amedhyam: try tasting spoiled bisibele bath or

rotten tomatos (even a fresn tomato is amedhyam for

misguided vydhikas as it is a foreign vegetable!).

 

It is the attitude that counts.

Even eating a dry leaf arrogantly, without

accepting it as prasaadam is like eating

only sin (bhunjate te tvagam paapa

ye pachantyaatma kaaraNaat).

 

Patram pushpam... is just to say

even any of them offered with faith.

In fact the highest puja is japa yagnya.

We can not live on that!

 

dAsan

 

K.S. tatAchAr

[Guest guest]

Respected swamins,

 

The following is a story Adiyen had heard, but adiyen is unable to say from which source I got this.

Once a frog got caught under the bow that Rama was holding. The frog

was struggling silently but made no appeal to Rama to release it.

Rama took notice of it after sometime when he lifted the bow. Needless

to say how Rama would have felt on seeing the frog struggling for life

by this act. He asked the frog why it didnt make any sound / cry so

that He could have noticed it immediately and released it. The frog

replied, when Rama Himslef had given pain and suffering to it,

whom else it could appeal for relief. If one believes that Rama was a

meat eater, how many times Rama would have to repent for the

unfortunate animals that would have silently endured the death than to

have appealed to Rama for mercy!! Can anyone think of such a Rama

even in dreams?

 

There are many dharmas brought out in Ramavathara.The foremost of them

is rakshakathwam of Rama (Vaarthamalai). When those around him were

unwilling to accept Vibheeshana, Rama told them that even if Ravana had

come, he would accept him. Such a Rama who is kind even to the worst

offender, can not be unkind to a hapless animal as to get it killed to

relish its meat. His personality traits do not support such a habit.

 

Coming to the issue in Ramayana,

Why hanuman brought up the topic of meat and wine?

 

Let us look at the context.

Sita was worried about how Rama was enduring the pain of separation

from her. Hanuman's priority was to say how Rama was enduring the pain

without ofcourse injuring himself.

 

To make sure that he is able to convince her, he swears on his basic needs such as dwelling and food.

 

Then he goes about saying what Rama subsisted upon.

It is obvious that Rama and coterie had lived an austere life right

from the time they started vanavasam. So absolutely no question

of meat and wine during vanavasam. But why then Hanuman said so.

 

The plausible explanation can be like this.

Generally meat and wine are taken in a jubliant mood or when one is in terrible suffering, in order to forget the suffering.

Hanuman had hinted on the ways that human beings behave in such duress

and had said that even to endure the terrible suffering of having

lost you (Sita), Rama did not resort to meat and wine to forget the

suffering even momentarily.

Rama kept on enduring the pain and suffering minute by minute

without allowing the suffering to diminish in anyway. This is made

out by Hanuman in the next verses. So the mention of meat and

wine is to say that such a Rama did not wish for it even to forget or

reduce the pain and suffering. Instead He was on minimumn subsistence,

that too, well past the day, in the evening to make Himself going.

 

It is adiyen's understanding is that any interpretation of such

seemingly controversial passages must be done carefully taking into

account the characterisation of the personalities involved. Adiyen

is sure that the above explanation must have already been there

in some acahrya vaakhyams. Adiyen was overwhelmed to know that a

similar explanation is being repeatedly given by Sri Subramaniam Swamy,

who has stalled the sethu project (though temprorarily) by taking it up

with the Supreme court.

 

dasan,

ManivannanOn 10/27/07, tatachar <tatachar wrote:

 

Dear Swamins,

 

Last year during my visit to India, I had darshanam of Sri

Rangapriya Swamy in Bangalore. I had the pleasure of seeing him

perform aradhanam and give us ample prasadam (curd rice parmaannam). I

mentioned to my children that I was not hungry, as I had prasadam.

There was no need to add that HH does not relish meat and

thus we had only curd rice! My children also did not ask whether he

also gave or why he did not give chicken nuggets!

WHY? BECAUSE of the prevailing ETHOS. IT IS UNDRESTOOD even by

kids raised here with 100% open mind in the US.

 

Why Hanuman brought it up? Afterall, monkeys are generally vegetarian;

Because, Raama perhaps was not; meat eating was the norm for

humans. There were over 300 different kind of animals that were tied to

yUpasthambham for an Yagna performed by dasharatha, as detailed in

vaalmiki RamaayaNam. Don't tell me animals offered to yagna was not

consumed- this is same as saying pongal

naivedhyam offered to God is not consumed by humans!

Any food we consume has to be sanctified- then it is not paapam.

Before you get carried away, remember Hitler was vegetarian, whereas

Joseph Campbell is a steak and potato man. He understood

God, religion, Mythology- better than nayone I know!

 

Another analogy: Sex is a natural requirement and part of

puruSHaartham.It is sanctioned through marriage (any of the 7 or

8 types of communion sanctioned in the Vedas). If it is forced on

the spouse, it is rape! If it happens out side of this it is

adultery.

If we eat 100% vegetarian food without teh attitude that it is prasadam- we eat only sin.

 

Meat is not barred in Hinduism on the whole.

It is only a taboo in few Hindu sects (Vaishnavas, Lingayats,

ShreSHTis etc). It is a later day custom.

Only in Jainism, it is prohibited on the whole.

It may even be Jain influence on Hindus.

 

Thus, it is more cultural- Like Christians in the US do not eat dog, although not prohibted in the Bible

 

dAsan

 

K.S. tAtAchAr

 

 

man v <manv2005

sudarsanp;

Tatachar; deepak.vinod;

; vasudevanmg

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 8:31 am

Re: Re: rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8

 

 

Respected bhagavathas,

 

In response to Sudharshan swamy's mail, let me ask the bhagavathas to go through the following link by Stephen Knapp

 

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vegetarianism_recommended_in_Vedic_scripture.htm

 

 

The follwoing is from this link..

 

" The verse that comes in question in this regard in the Valmiki

Ramayana, Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: " Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam

.. "

The

literal translation of this verse is: " Sri Rama does not take meat or

honey. He partakes everyday of wild fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully

sanctioned (for an ascetic) in the evening. "

Faulty

English translations have put it as something like this: Hanuman to

Sita, " When you were away, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat. " This

incorrectly implies that Rama normally may have ate meat but did not do

so while Sita was away from Him.

Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte

is a verb that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you say

Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says " Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte " , it gives a complete negative connotation, meaning that Lord Rama abhorred meat-eating. On the other hand, if the words were "

Na mamsam Raghavo khadate " ,

it could then mean that Raghava may have engaged in meat eating before,

but had stopped it at this point. However, this is not what is said,

but is where some English translations present a similar confusion, or

are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by analyzing the

correct view of the proper translation, it indicates clearly that the

Valmiki Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it. "

 

 

Kindly read the link to know in entirity.

 

Regarding the question of partaking the left overs of the Yajna:-

In chapter 3 of Bhagavad Gita, the Lord tells about partaking the left

over of the yajna. But the yajna mentioned here is the Pancha Maha

yajnas, Brahma, Deva, Pithru, Bhootha and Manushya yajnas and not the

ones where animals were sacrificed. These yajnas are done to offset the

pancha sunaas (5 murders that take palce in a gruhastha's house) . When

the Lord says that a person is released from " sarva kilpishaihi " (from

all paapas) (Gita- 3-13) when he eats the left over of the yajna, the

sarva paapam refers to the unintentional paapam of killing one does

while cooking,heating, grinding, sweeping and in powdering food stuffs.

 

Coming to our question,

whether Rama ate meat, any arguments can be given on the basis of

varnashrama of kshthriyas, Vali's accusation etc. But no verse is

there in Valmiki Ramayana saying or even suggesting that Rama ate meat!

We can only argue that one in Rama's place might have eaten meat.But Rama as an embodiment of Shuddha sattwam (He is Narayana incarnate) can not have eaten meat at all!

Why Rama? Even Dasharatha could not

have eaten meat.In his first ever talk to Sita in Sundhara khnadam

(sarga 31), Hanuman describes Dasharatha as " ahimsa rathI " the one who

does not harm any. Could he have harmed animals to satisfy his taste

buds or stomach? Could his son, who protects even a paapishtan

(paapathodu varilum amaiyum endran) have injured any animal purely for

eating sake?

 

Dasan,

Manivannan

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/26/07, Sudarsan Parthasarathy.S. <sudarsanp

> wrote:

Sri RAmajayam

SrimathE GopAla DEsika MahA DEsikAya Namaha

 

Dear Sri.Manivannan,

Are

you 100% sure there is no

mention in Valmiki that Sri RAma has not consumed

meat. You will find it mentioned in several places,

and in fact PirAtti telling AnjanEyar that it is no

surprise Rama was not taking meat as he could not

perform YajnAs.

 

More in Valmiki on Brahmins eating meat: When Vali was

shot by an arrow, Vali queries Sri.Rama to his

satisfaction. One of his comments was among meat that

are allowed for Brahmins & Kshatriyas, monkey is not

one of them, so you have no excuse to kill me even for

the sake of consumption (Sastras do not allow 5 nailed

creatures to Kshatriyas & Brahmins with the exception

of rhino, tortoise, porcupine & 2 more).

 

Coming back to Sri.MGV's postings, AdiyEn have

summarized the following, and have not seen anything

self-inferred.

 

a. Meat was consumed across Varnashrama. Some meat is

not allowed for certain Varnashramas.

b. Meat should be consecrated (anyway all food should

be consecrated and consumed as Bhagavad Prasadham)

before consumption.

c. Meat is ordained to be consecrated differently

(Yajna/SamskAra vidhis).

d. Meat is not fit for consumption of

Prapannas/Mumukshus.

 

My open questions to Sri.MGV swamin are " does this

mean before Prapatthi brahmins can partake meat

offered in YajnAs " . Are there any specific rules how

the meat consecrated in YajnAs be consumed and does it

vary for different varnAshramas.

 

AdiyEn know the best answer is to follow AchArya (Sat

SampradAyam), just asked these questions for the sake

of gaining insight.

 

If AdiyEn were to reflect on Sri.MGV 's points, AdiyEn

can easily correlate some day-2-day observations,

 

a. SrArdha/Dwadasi/PerumAl thaligai at several Sri

Vaishnavite homes are common (eg. devoid of

Onion/garlic/mushroom/cabbage/radish etc etc). What

does this imply, we keep the good traditions for

spiritual pursuits. Even Smarthas do not partake

onion/garlic on their spiritual occassions.

b. Kovil thaligai to this date is devoid of tomatoes,

potatoes, onion, garlic. Even using Chillies in

Puliyodharai & Asfoetida is a recent phenomenon.

c. Traditional non-vegetarians like Chettiars,

MudaliyArs become vegetarians at a later stage of

their life, and even demand seperate vessels/kitchen.

In former times, and many elders in their family to

this date seek Samasrayanam & Prapatthi. So as

Prapannas they seek vegetarian food, while in their

active life they took non-veg. Even if they missed

nourishing YajnAs in their prime they take the

REFORMING COURSE.

d. Traditional non-vegetarians like Chettiars,

Mudaliyars, Pillai's avoid non-veg (some of them

include onion/garlic too) in certain months like

PuratAsi, Margazhi as well as certain days like

Amavasai, Tuesday, Friday, Ekadasi and Pandigai days.

This is to show in former times they were engaged in

nourishing YajnAs and consumed non-veg only as

Prasadham, and YajnA vidhis do not allow animal

sacrifice on such days.

e. Depending on your position in a YajnA one has to

consume Vapai (portion of meat from goat consecrated

in rituals like Somayajnyam) mandatorily. So a

person/prapanna averse to meat may choose appropriate

roles leaving the meat role to other Varnas.

f. Our YajnOpaveetha Sankalpam itself covers

" Sroutha-Smartha vidhi vihitha " , so AdiyEn do not

think its correct to classify one outside the scope of

Vedas...On this point AdiyEn would leave it your

judgement or scholars.

 

AdiyEn Sri RAmAnuja DAsan,

 

Sudarsana DAsOsmi

 

-

 

 

 

 

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free

AOL Mail!

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamins:I am sorry to find that an innocuous reference to "rama's food habits" has turned out to be an unnecessary debate.As you know "Sri Ranga Sri" is NOT the forum for such debates. So, I am reluctantly constrained to call a halt to the series.This does not mean that the discussions are devoid of merit. In fact, as I pointed out earler, they provide enough food for thought and brings forthwell researched inputs from very learned scholars.I personally enjoyed them. But, in the present political context, the points are likely to be misquoted and twisted to suit the convenience of those trying to deride Bhagavaan,Sri Rama.The discussions may be carried on through private mails.Thanks for your undrstanding and co-operation.DasohamAnbil Ramaswamy

 

 

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:38:49 +0530manv2005To: vasudevanmgSubject: Re: Re: rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8CC: Tatachar; ramanbil; sudarsanp; deepak.vinod; kausalyaputhri

Respected Swamins,Adiyen's humble pranams to you all.What started as a question on whether Rama ate meat is now enlarged with another issue of Rama's act of 'killing' by hunting.From Sri MGV's response, it is clear that swami had not argued nor could justify even after 8 mails that Rama ate meat. No one can ever, for, such a proof can not be found anywhere in the 6 khandams of Valmiki Ramayana.The 2nd issue :-Sri MGV (quote) "By the time 'sending of raama' is asked by visvaamithra and raama sent with him, he was only 12 years

 

– not even 18 - a 'major' in present day context – so a 'major' can do whatever he likes – legally permitted - and his dad cannot question –

 

– but raama was 12 when he goes for hunting.

 

– Hunting is a game of 'himsa or ahimsa' for 'pleasure or not' – let Manivannan swamy clarify."

 

 

Sri Tatachar (quote)"So Rama feeling pity on ailing frog ALONE DOES NOT prove that he was not used to meat consumption and all those 300+ variety of animals an dteh animal sthey kille din teh forest was only to offer to meat hungrt devataas in yagnya! "(Adiyen continues)By saying that Rama had killed animals for pleasure, or himsa or for yajna, are not our respectable and knowldegeable swamins playing into the mindset of Karunanidhi, the CM of Tamil nadu who asked " when Salman khan (the Hindhi actor) is accused and punished for killing a rare deer, why no whimper is being raised against Raman who also killed a rare golden deer? Why no punishment to Raman?"What would you say for this question?What are we trying to prove by talking about what the Western animal right activists are saying one thing but behaving to the contrary and from the rules and habits of our present times?And the major - minor rules are for us and made by us.How can we use this as yardstick for Raman?The only yardstick for so-called 'majoring' in his times is getting intiated by upanayanam. So it is not proper to see from the perspective of our times on majoring. If we insist to know about majoring at His times, we can say that Rama 'majored' at his upanayanam.Coming ot the issue, if we kill, it is an offence.Should we attribute the same law to Raman?Then in what perspective we must see Raman's act?First of all we must know through which paradigm we must analyse Ramayanam.If we are seeing Him as a Divine character, then we must analyse with the CONVICTION that He is God!We must have our convictions, rules and assumptions right.Otherwise we will be doing the job of a Romila Thapar or Ramasamy Periyar, and what we write then will not be Ramayanam, but Keemayanam!Even if we say that it is for the purpose of writing a research, we must follow the rules and conviction around which this Ithihaasa is woven.The conviction is that Rama is God.The God killing the animals at whatever age will be for some purpose.None of His acts will go without a reasoning, particularly if it is about killing.By killing by hunting, as per conviction, Rama had done dushta nigraham (killing the dushtas in animal forms) or had relieved many souls from the curses and perhaps even granted them Eternal Release or moksha.The other convictions, namely, Ahimsa, sattwa and exceptional circumstance, have been already dealt with by adiyen in the first mail on this issue.Now let us look at the issue from other paradigms.These are from Rama's own words.Rama speaks about killing by hunting and killing by meat eaters, in his reply to Vali.He also tells the rules.He justifies killing by hunting by a " Rajarishi" - not just a Raja, the king! (The bala khanda verses on hunting therefore can either be of Rama, the God or Rama as a Rajarishi.). He defines the rajarishis as 'manusha roopEna devas' and not just humans!(4-18-42)He justifies the pose and posture of the animals at the time of killing by meat eaters, and not meat eating itself!. If He justifies meat eating, it will run counter to many dharma slokas and will be against sattwam and karma thoery. An embodiment of Dharma can not speak in 2 voices on the same issue of dharma. So the slokas must be read with proper perspective. (From vali vadam in Kishkindha khandam)Rama's reply to Vaali's accusation on killing him:---quote begins-----------------na me tatra manastaapo na manyuH haripu.ngava |vaaguraabhiH ca paashaiH ca kuuTaiH ca vividhaiH naraaH || 4-18-37praticChannaaH ca dR^ishyaaH ca gR^ihNanti subahuun mR^igaan |"I have neither angst nor ire in this matter of my eliminating you, or, your reviling me, oh, best monkey, but listen to the other point I wish to make clear. People will be capturing several animals, either covertly or overtly, with snares, springes and even with numerous contrivances. [4-18-37, 38a]pradhaavitaan vaa vitrastaan visrabdhaan ativiSThitaan || 4-18-38pramattaan apramattaan vaa naraa maamsa ashino bhR^isham |vidhyanti vimukhaam ca api na ca doSo atra vidyate || 4-18-39"Meat eating people will undeniably kill animals, either they are speedily sprinting or standing steadily, fully dismayed or undismayed, vigilant or unvigilant, and even if they are facing away, in that there is no sacrilege. [4-18-38b, 39]yaanti raajarSayaH ca atra mR^igayaam dharma kovidaaH |tasmaat tvam nihato yuddhe mayaa baaNena vaanara |ayudhyan pratiyudhyan vaa yasmaat shaakhaa mR^igo hi asi || 4-18-40"In this world even the kingly sages well-versed in virtue will go on hunting, and hunting is no face to face game, as such, oh, vanara, therefore I felled you in combat with my arrow because you are a tree-branch animal, whether you are not combating with me or combating against me. [4-18-40]durlabhasya ca dharmasya jiivitasya shubhasya ca |raajaano vaanarashreSTha pradaataaro na samshayaH || 4-18-41"Kings are the bounteous benefactors of the unobtainable righteousness and propitious lifestyles, oh, best vanara, no doubt about it. [4-18-41]taan na hi.msyaat na ca aakroshen na aakSipen na apriyam vadet |devaa maanuSa ruupeNa caranti ete mahii tale || 4-18-42"They the kings are not to be harmed, also not to be reproved, not disparaged and nothing displeasing is spoken to them, as they are the divinities conducting themselves in human form on the plane of earth. [4-18-42]tvam tu dharmam avij~naaya kevalam roSam aasthitaH |viduuSayasi maam dharme pitR^i paitaamahe sthitam || 4-18-43"I am abiding by the ethicalness practised by my father and forefathers, but you revile me without the knowledge of rightness, just by clinging to your rancour." Thus said Rama to dying Vali. [4-18-43]evam uk{}taH tu raameNa vaalii pravyathito bhR^isham |na doSam raaghave dadhyau dharme adhigata nishchayaH || 4-18-44Vali is much distressed at heart of hearts when Rama has said categorically in that way, whereby, deriving certitude about rightness he found no incorrectness with Rama. [4-18-44]----------------------------quote ended--------------------Finally a word to SrI Tatachar who said that our acharyas have destroyed many a universal Truth of sanatana dharma! Respected swamin, Adiyen has no knowledge of those things, nor even the avarneeyas that swamin is well versed with.Adiyen only knows what acharyas want us to do!!Acharyas have wanted us to be pathi vrathais, who can not think anything wrong of their pathis. Adiyen's pathi, lord is Bhagawan, Sri Rama. Rama can never be wrong, can never do anything abhorable.To suspect him of meat-eating and hunting for himsa or pleasure is like suspecting the chastity of one's own mother. Others can suspect. But the children must never even in dreams suspect the mother!In this respect, Adiyen thanks Sri Deepak for penning this wonderful insight.(quote Sri Deepak Vinod)"One can bring quotes from everywhere and be so proud to present facts in the knowledged way...but the "dharma Saar" is lost...

There is a difference between Dharma and Dharma Saar...essence of riteousness.

 

One may like to refer to the story of Vipra-patni from 10 Canto in Sri-mad Bhagwatam. The vipras were practising Dharma..but had no dharma saar, as a result they were so proud and even offended Krishna.

 

Please pardon my offences....

Its just that every post on this matter made me think that in this Kaliyuga as per Srimad Bhagwatam, the essence of shAstra will be lost due to inappropriate preaching and translation."(end quote)Adiyen has no intention of continuing with this thread unless an interference is needed - like when the mother's integrity is questioned, the son can not remain quiet....Adiyen also begs your pardon if adiyen had hurt anyone. Hurting is not adiyen's intention, much like adiyen's Master, Raman.Even the Ramayana written by a hunter (Please refer Sri MGV's mail below), starting with a scene of violence (maa nishadaa slokam) is not about himsa.The sage utters the maa nishadaa slokam with utter compassion (karuna veditvaat) .After that only he becomes anguished (shokaartena).The mercy of Lord is always there. But it can be felt only when we are in distress!The distress causes shokam - (Ramayana runs with pathos).It is the shokam that encelopes human life.The four-faced Brahma who comes to remove the worry of Valmiki on this maa nishaadaa slokam, advises him to just leave it as such.Because that shokam of loss, of death and of killing is the way of world.That is how the world exists. It is Brahma's creationSo leave it at that.Instead (Brahma says) talk about the dharma of Rama.(dharmaatmano bhagavato loke raamasya dhiimataH ||vR^ittam kathaya dhiirasya yathaa te naaradaat shrutam | (1-2-32))"You shall narrate the legend of Rama, the virtuous, intellectual and an intrepid one, and a godlike person in this world as well, as you have heard it from sage Narada." [1-2-32b-33a]Brahma does not say what Rama's story will do to the people.He just wants Valmiki to narrate the life of that dharmishtan.It is only that we learn from Rama's story.The redeeming learning is encapsuled beautifully by Papanasam sivan in his song "Raamanai bhajitthaal " (in maandu ragam)"nammai sodhanai-th-theeyil sputam iduvan - irangithookki edutthu anandam aLutthidivaan"He is subjecting us to himsa. Then only He can lift us up from himsa and make us feel happy.Then only we can experience His mercy.The Ramayana does not start or run with himsa. It starts and runs with melancholy and pathos which is very much the nature of living in this world.That Rama is the Rakshakan is the essence of the story. A rakshakan can never do himsa to others unless there are other strong dharmic reasons. (veda vidhi in yajna bali, hunting / killing for dushta nigraham or Release. But eating meat has no dharmic reasoning. )Hanuman's first description of Rama to Sita (sundhara khandam ) is"Rakshita swasya dharmasya swa-janasya cha rakshita/rakshitha jeeva lokasya dharmasya cha paranthapah//When Sita asked Rama what His parama dharmaam was, He had replied "para-dhukkam sahiyaamai" (sundhara khandam) Rama can never stand the suffering of others.How can such a Rama do himsa to others?Adiyens humble pranams to one and all,dasan,Manivannan.

 

On 10/28/07, MG Vasudevan <vasudevanmg wrote: If you are using a screen reader, you may wish to switch to basic HTMLfor a better experience.

Sub:

rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8 Inbox

 

Dear Srivaishnavaas,

 

First of all my praNaamams to you all.

 

My respects to sri Anbil swamy.

 

This is only a response mail to be in private circulation – primarily. But if anbil swamy decides to circulate in list, I have no objection.

 

Part a: On anbil swamy's portion of mail quoted below as first mail, I will not offer any comments.

Though I would like very much to quote from Monier Williams Sanskrit English dictionary always, I referred V.S.Apte dictionary and did that portion. Since it is concise, I used the meaning, whatever given there. [i have both on my table ready]. Please substitute with what anbil swamy has added.

The usage of meat in sraardhams was given from mahaa bhaaratham to prove that it was not a taboo those days and knowing fully well that it has no connection with raama's food habits.

 

Also while referring that only came other points from bheeshma's lectures to yudhishtira.

 

Part B: On Mr. Manivannan's post forwarded by anbil swamy as post 2

 

dear manivannan swamy – Thank you very much for the comment that I am a regular reader of MGV's posts.

 

– But would like to add -- it is 'too too early' to pass such remarks " as hardly there was any information on what Rama ate but rather the series seemed to focus on whether Rama could have eaten meat!!"

 

In my series – in posts upto 8 - I have not yet gone to that stage of even 'raama's birth'.

 

Then how can I give his habits.

 

What I wanted is to cover slowly is in same way from sankshepa, then how vaalmeeki has covered even minor details like sabari food, then go sargam by sargam.

 

Meanwhile, since sri sudarsan's swamy's mail came, I got diverted to some extent, which I said in my 8 th post.

 

Since the basic spark was sri deepak's mail, I had to add that sundara kaandam portion and uththara kaanda portion of raamaayanam and deal that ayodhya 56 th sargam portion to confirm meat eating was not a taboo.

 

Also this portion given below, I did not use in my mail to list – but gave in the private mail to anbil swamy and Deepak –

quote

– And after slokam 33 in this sargam there is a prakshiptha slokam which is gOvindaraja's paatam – a variation available in gOvindaraajaa's paatam only -

 

vanyai: maalyai: phalai: moolai: maamsai: yathaa vidhi adhibhir japaischa vEdhOkthai: dharbhai scha sasamith kusai:

thou tharpayithvaa bhoothaani raaghavou saha seethayaa

thadhaa vivisathu: saalaam susubhaam subhalakshaNou ||

here again he offered as per rules – the roots, fruits, and meat – and offered tharpaNam, and then entered and settled in the house. So nowhere in this sargam it is stated he ate meat.

Unquote

 

Again in list mail also I repeated what I sent as a private draft mail first to anbil swamy as reply to Deepak - in which I said raama did not eat – as in sargam 56 – but offered as bali

 

a kshathriya going for hunting even before 12 - giving a bali in 25 or 26 – is NOT at all a taboo - those days – the lines are very clear – [also covered in lakshmaNa series].

 

Again I said even in my lakshmana series, lakshmana telling raama 'you know the saasthrams right'.

 

Also in slokam 1-18-25 and 26 – there itself vaalmeeki has stated all 4 are well versed in vedhaas including dhanur vedham – the science of archery.

 

So let swamy read the mail again.

 

– as vaalmeeki in that 18th sargam of baala kaandam itself says 'raama goes for hunting on horse back and whenever he goes lakshmaNa follows like his bahi praaNa'.

– [upto slokam 23 it is birth of the 4, and connected enjoyment, naming of 4 children].

 

– In 31st slokam straight - raama goes for hunting and that too it is referred in context of describing the closeness of lakshmana and raama.

 

– By the time 'sending of raama' is asked by visvaamithra and raama sent with him, he was only 12 years

 

– not even 18 - a 'major' in present day context – so a 'major' can do whatever he likes – legally permitted - and his dad cannot question –

 

– but raama was 12 when he goes for hunting.

 

– Hunting is a game of 'himsa or ahimsa' for 'pleasure or not' – let Manivannan swamy clarify.

 

– I quote the slokam below. 1-18-31.

mR^iSTam+annam+upaaniitam= delicious, food, brought [for him];

ashnaati+na+ ca= eat it, not, also;

tam+vinaa= him [Lakshmana,] without;

yadaa+hi+hayam+aruuDhaH= when, verily, horse, mounted;

mR^igayaam+yaati+raaghava= for a hunting game, goes, Raghava.

 

Rama would not eat food brought for him, however delicious it may be, without Lakshmana, and whenever Raghava goes on a hunting game... mounted on horseback, [Lakshmana follows him behind...] [1-18-31]

 

Here I would like to add as added points –

Vaalmeeki is a hunter basically

He saw another hunter killing one krouncha pakshi among two

That too when the two birds were in mithunam – which mithunam is supposed to be not seen by anybody else

Vaalmeeki also cursed the hunter who killed the bird

Then he repented why he did that cursing.

 

So the kaavyam itself starts with 'the hunting scene' – a 'killing' scene, a jeeva himsai scene - and then the cursing slokam becomes a mangala slokam – maa nishaadha.

 

So 'hunting' – is it 'himsai' or 'ahimsai' – let swamy explain.

 

And throughout the raamaayanam somebody is killed intentionally, somebody is defaced. May be bhagavaan raama does that as part of his avathaara kaaryam – dhushta nigraham. so this killing of animals for doing bali is also part of the established karmas as found in vedhaas. Let it be himsai or ahimsai – let us accept that.

 

[Further the parNa saalaa entry is in ayodhya kaandam with mruga bali as said by raama. In aaraNya it is entry with pushpa bali done by lakshmana not raama. To that extent manivannan swamy to stand corrected].

 

I hasten to add here for the above comment on vaalmeeki and starting of the kaavyam

– it is NOT with the intention of deriding or degrading ramayanam – which is more and more dear to my heart and mind – 'and doing research in that – as a result of which these articles appear' - as V.Sadagopan swamy communicated yesterday also

– but I am presenting facts.

 

On that 'pathram phalam pushpam thOyam' – I have nothing to say except that the intention or the mind of offering to the lord is more important than whether it is 'PPPT'---- swamin, hope I understood geethaa correctly to a very little extent – may be 0.1% .

 

Part C: On third mail from sudarsan swamy

 

– bheeshma's answer is very clear

– in case of doubt what 10 vedha virpannaaL say is the final

 

– nowadays viz. in this kali age – they say no yagnams, only prapaththi for sreevaishnavaas, for other vaishnavaas and others it is naama sankeerthanam only

 

– if any yagnam then only all these meat etc comes and then doubts.

– NO yagnams itself.

 

– Even if it is so then also no animal sacrifice.

– So there is no question of 2 periods for sree viashnavaas – prior to and after prapaththi

– like B.C. and A.D. of Christians.

 

– so I hope I answered that open question to me.

 

Part D: On the response mail again from sri manivannan –

 

Manivannan swamy – please clarify - What are the other dhevathaas referred to in the yagnam where mruga bali is offered – if it is not brahma, dheva, Pithru, bootha and manushya yagnaas – apart from this list of 5 - who are the other 'dhevaas' offered meat in yagnaas.

 

I am ready to learn from any source and I do not claim any big scholar - except in civil engineering – of course I am a very good 'civil engineer' and knowledgeable enough in that field, served and retired now – knowledge gained still remains - not on these 'subjects'.

 

This Stephen knapp ref I have already seen.

 

another 'hedonistic themes in ramayana' from where I quoted that 'uththara kaaNda ramayanam portion is already covered in my exchange with anbil swamy as private mail.

 

Also exchanged is a note in valmikiramayan website itself on rama's vegetarianism - sent to sri anbil swamy and deepak.

 

therein the authors of website strongly say it is jains influence that vegetarian twist is given in the meanings of ramayan in later days.

 

Already I quoted a portion of 'govindaraja' who offers his salutation to 'nammaazhvaar' in his first line of baala kaandam as his guru vandanam. And all sreevaishnavaas accept govindaraja vyaakhyaanam as an acceptable one than others.

 

Another information on this nonveg – is even today bengali brahmins and brahmins of orissa close to bengal are 'fish eaters'.

 

The other day when I was in kolkata I had a bengali colleague, when my friend introduced me to him saying he writes on ramayan etc, that bengali friend started quoting from ramayan and started asking questions to me.

 

Just then he finished a good fish item in lunch – I ant describe what it is - where I was also forced to eat a 5 star lunch - of course a full veg for me – my course outside is always paruppu saadham and thayir saadham.

 

 

Part E: on the mail of Sri Tatachar swamy of date [27th Saturday]

 

Swamy is clear in his understanding. Hats off to him. I do not know his age. At his age he is very clear in his understandings.

 

Raama lived as a 'brahmachari' when seethaa was by his side – in the forest and later.

How it is – this was one of my earlier articles

– as per manu's law - raama is a brahmachari – as also arjuna –known for his many wives -

 

again another quote from maha bharatha referred in that article.

 

The meaning of brahmacharyam was different as per manu – same way the bali and non veg stuff.

– 'not totally absenting from sex' as interpreted these days.

 

 

Part F: on mail again from manivaanan – that frog story – I also read it in 'raamayana kuttik kadhaigal' in tamil. Thanks for referring that.

 

Let me progress with the series and meanwhile we will continue these discussions outside the sriragasri as sri anbil swamy said. But if swamy advises me to keep off I am ready for that also -

 

[may be that is what is running in anbil swamy's mind - since swamy has not released next 5 portions to the list - till bala and athiala manthrams].

 

Regards to all and once again my respects to anbil swamy

 

MGVPS: read KST's mailjust now. my points are already statedon KST. again my appreciation only for his clear understanding.

 

 

 

 

On 10/28/07, Tatachar < Tatachar wrote: Dear Swamin,No point in going around and around. Two facts are quite obvious:They ate and it is hard for our acharyas and people like you to digest that! Adding pages and pages of vyaakhyanams is totally unnecessary and are rarelysupportive. Our Achaarya explanations for most part are appealing onlybecause the followers trust in their wisdom - in the absence of that, they often sound shallow and narrow. Basically each one of themhave earnestly destroyed the basic universal truth of sanathna dharma.Just think about the "avarNeeyas" so dear to our Achaaryas (all sorts, not just Srivaishnava). If you understand Purusha suktam, can there beany avarNeeya- it is like telling some people are born with no blood.This is a good example on how they are willing to go out of wayto protect their mookneram tradition instead of truth! There is no taboo about meat consumption in our foremost scriptures. It is the attitude that counts. Many peopel who eat meat in this country have also camapigned to banish use of animals (such as mice) for basic cosemetics products discovery and research. We can not even smear baby oil on mouse back in our company. The announcement of abandoning use of animals for research altogether was made while we were relishing on just served barbequed beef/pork ribs at a special celebration for 50th anniversary of our reserach center! So Rama feeling pity on ailing frog ALONE DOES NOT prove that he was not used to meat consumption and all those 300+ variety of animals an dteh animal sthey kille din teh forest was only to offer to meat hungrt devataas in yagnya! dAsanK.S. tAtAchAr-- Vasudevan MG