Did Rama eat Meat?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by shvu:

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

There are mention of various sacrifices that involve the consumption of animal flesh by the brahmana priests and the king. The aswa-medha yajna is one example, but the same scriptures which describe this yajna also say it is forbidden to be performed in Kali yuga.

 

In Vedic yajnas the animal was not 'killed', but was elevated to a higher body. This was done to prove the efficacy of the brahmanas and the mantras they were chanting. The king was sacrificing huge quantities of gold and other valuables into the fire, and he needed some guarantee that it was actually being delivered to the gods, and not just being burnt up. For this purpose, the brahmana priests would physically demonstrate the efficacy of their mantras by transforming the animal into a gandharva. A horse would enter the fire, and a Gandharva (a heavenly human species) would emerge form the fire. The soul of the horse would be given a higher birth, and it was seen directly by the king. There still remained the karma of the horse to be accounted for. That horse was destined to traverse through many lives before he attained the body of the andharva, so that karma needed to be ballanced. All of those karmic reactions, existing between the horse body and the gandharva body, would remain in the flesh of the horses dead body. It was the duty of the king and the brahmanas to eat that flesh, and there by accept all of the karmic reactions within it. It is described that after eating this flesh, the brahmanas would lose their tejas and no longer be able to perform sacrifice. They would have to perform severe tapasya (austerities) in order to regain their tejas and shakti. The king would likewise have to give his entire wealth away in charity as a means to regain his tejas. Thus the king and brahmanas eating of flesh in the sacrifice was not an enjoyment, but a sacrifice they had to accept.

 

 

According to the original Ramayana, Rama eats deer meat in the forest.

 

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.

 

 

 

[shvu 1]

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.

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."

 

This is the reference that I have, albeit not verified by me. Perhaps someone who has access to the Valmiki Ramayana can verify this.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

Note from jndas: Parts relevant only to the other thread (on McDonald's) has been removed for clarity. You can see the original on that thread.

 

Yeah, in Shvu's ancient india the main food was beef. Ok. Thanks for your comments. I think you should do some more research on the gomedha-yajna and get back to us with your conclusions.

How about a sample?

 

If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son. -Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18

 

And this was at a time, when the Veda was limited to the circle of Brahmanas only.

 

With due respect, it takes more than iskcon books to learn about ancient India. Viewing everything from behind Gaudiya tinted glasses just does not cut it.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Sruti authority cannot be denied by those who supposedly are defending sanatana-dharma's precepts, as the case of Harekrsnas.

Shvuji has clear pointed out the sruti opinion regarding to eat bovine meat. He has quoted Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18 as a sound proof that sruti allows even brahmanis to eat this kind of flesh.

 

Besides that quote by Shvuji, we should add the following instructions given by sruti regarding the same issue:

 

1. Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single-colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by fervor - vouchsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647].

 

In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. Another hymn (RV: X.16.7) mentions the ritual enveloping of the corpse with cow flesh before applying the fire on it.

 

2. In the Brahmanas at 1.15 in the Aiteriya Brahmana, the kindling of Agni on the arrival of King Some is compared to the slaughter of a bull or a barren cow on the arrival of a human king or other dignitary.

 

3. Similarly, at II.1.11.1 in the Taiteriya Brahmana and XXXI.14.5 in the Panchavinsha Brahmana, the rishi Agastya is credited with the slaughter of a hundred bulls.

 

4. In verse III.1.2.21 in the Satapatha Brahmana, sage Yajnavalkaya asserts that even though the cow is the supporter of everyone, he would eat beef "if it is luscious." At IV.5-2.1 in the same Brahmana, it is said that a barren cow can be slaughtered in the some sacrifice. Not only for religious purposes, but also for other purposes one could kill a cow and eat beef. Thus at II.4.2 of the same Brahmana, it is suggested that a fat bull or fat goat should be sacrificed in honor of an important guest.

 

5. Brihadaranyaka Upanishada (VI.4.18) advises a couple to take an evening meal of beef or veal pulao, if they desire to beget a son who is learned in the Vedas [Robert Trumbull, As I see India, London, 1957, p. 241].

 

Smrti texts should always follows sruti assertive and never deny them. Manu smrti is to be considered the main dharma-sastra in this regard, and Manu-smrti clear states that no one is to be considered an inhabitant of hell simply because he eats meat, or he drinks wine. There are special conditions to be accepted as dharmics while eating meat and drinking wine.

 

Another smrti text, the Bhagavata Purana also mention that some kind of meat should always be considered as dharmic, even in Kali-yuga (9.6.7) . Another important smrti text, the Vaisnava dharmasastra from Visnu-smrti (51.6) also says: "If a man has (unawares) eaten meat of a five-toed animal, with the exception of the hare, the porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros, and the tortoise, he must fast for seven days."

 

And also itihasas says: 'Only five among the five-clawed creatures can be eaten by Brahmans and Ksatriyas, Raghava: the hedgehog, the porcupine, the lizard, the rabbit, and fifth, the turtle.' " -- Ramayana 4:17:34.

 

We cannot find any clear injunction in these smrtis that bovine meat is to be considered impure, not proper to be taken and so on.

 

Therefore, if Gaudiya-vaisnavas really want to have a serious discussion in this regard, they should present a sruti text clearly stating that bovine meat should not be eaten. Smrti texts that may deny the sruti assertive mentioned before should not be mentioned, as they are false inferences on sruti.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

We cannot find any clear injunction in these smrtis that bovine meat is to be considered impure, not proper to be taken and so on.

 

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.

 

[Guest guest]

This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure.(Jndas)

 

This sruti text mentioned by Shvuji is from Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18, and the whole text also can be easily found in Hindu net sites, not in "anti-Hindu" web-sites. This text is not talking about a gomedha-yajña, but it is instructing on mundane dharma. It is saying; "one (even a brahmanin) should eat bovine meat to have a good son." There is no inference if the meat is coming from a gomedha-yajña or from any other origin in the text. This inference is yours.

 

We had are also mentioned the book publishers of the other sruti texts posted and anyone can consult its authenticity, and Rg Veda is not actually a secret and rare text to be read.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I said:

This is why I said, first do some serious research into what the gomedha-yajna is, what is involved and what is the procedure.

 

And Satyaraj replied

This sruti text mentioned by Shvuji is from Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18, and the whole text also can be easily found in Hindu net sites, not in "anti-Hindu" web-sites. This text is not talking about a gomedha-yajña, but it is instructing on mundane dharma.

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?

 

 

It is saying; "one (even a brahmanin) should eat bovine meat to have a good son."

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.

 

 

There is no inference if the meat is coming from a gomedha-yajña or from any other origin in the text. This inference is yours.

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).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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!

 

 

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head. Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90

The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94

Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90

 

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90

 

You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

 

May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18.

 

No pain should be caused to any created being or thing. Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116

 

 

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid killing any living creature. Refrain from taking precious life from any living being, even to save your own life. Tirukurral 324; 327, TW

 

Perceptive souls who have abandoned passion will not feed on flesh abandoned by life. TK 258, TW

 

Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature. TK 259, TW

 

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat. TK 260, TW

 

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the

flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species

he may take his birth. MAHABHARAT 115.47

 

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,

faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and

physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of

injury.

MAHABHARAT 18.115.8

 

The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by his

wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the

killer does Hinsa by actually tying and killing the animal.

Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh

or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and

he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of

these are to be considered meat-eaters.

MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40

 

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in

all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees

the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is

the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting

others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path.

BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28

 

Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas.

Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest

self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is

the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is

the highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching.

MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41

 

In his commentary on the Yoga Sutras, sage Vyasa defines ahimsa as "the absence of injuriousness (anabhidroha) toward all living beings (sarvabhuta) in all respects (sarvatha) and for all times (sarvada)."

 

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on

how it may avoid killing any creature.

TIRUKURAL 324

 

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful

adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.

TIRUKURAL 260

 

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting life,

for killing leads to every other sin.

TIRUKURAL 312, 321

 

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one

who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh.

TIRUKURAL 253

 

"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless way of life. In the Mahabharata, for instance, the great warrior Bhishma explains to Yudhishtira, eldest of the Pandava princes, that the meat of animals is like the flesh of one's own son, and that the foolish person who eats meat must be considered the vilest of human beings [Anu. 114.11]. The eating of 'dirty' food, it warns, is not as terrible as the eating of flesh [shanti. 141.88] (it must be remembered that the brahmanas of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a divine principle).

 

"Similarly, the Manusmriti declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds of meat,' for such eating involves killing and leads to karmic bondage (bandha) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharajah Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth [shrimad Bhagavatam 10.1.4].' "

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-13-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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 07-13-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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

 

[Janus 0]

"If somebody says that "I am a great devotee of Kali, goddess Kali," that is not bhakti; that is business. Because any demigod you worship, there is some purpose behind that. Generally, people take to become a devotee of goddess Kali for eating meat. That is their purpose. In the Vedic culture, those who are meat-eaters, they have been advised that "Don't eat meat purchased from the slaughterhouse or from the market." Actually, this system was never current anywhere, all over the world, that!

to maintain slaughterhouse. This is latest invention. We talk with sometimes with Christian gentlemen, and when we inquire that "Lord Christ says 'Thou shalt not kill'; why you are killing?" they give evidence that "Christ also ate meat sometimes." Sometimes Christ ate meat, that's all right, but did Christ say that "You maintain big, big slaughterhouse and go on eating meat?" There is no common sense even. Christ might have eaten. Sometimes he... If there was no, nothing available for eating, what could you do? That is another question. In great necessity, when there is no other food except taking meat... That time is coming. In this age, Kali-yuga, gradually food grains will be reduced. It is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Twelfth Canto. No rice, no wheat, no milk, no sugar will be available. One has to eat meat. This will be the condition. And maybe to eat the human flesh also. This sinful life is degrading so much so that they will become more and more sinful. Tan aham dvisatah kruran ksipamy ajasram andhe-yonisu. Those who are demons, those who are sinful, nature's law is to place him in such condition that he will become more and more a demon so that he will never be able to understand what is God. This is nature's law. If you want to forget God, then God will put you in such a condition that you can never understand what is God. That is demonic life. That time is also coming. At the present moment, still a few men are interested, what is God. Arto artharti jijnasu jnani. But time is coming ahead when there will be no sense to understand God. That is the last stage of Kali-yuga, and at that time Kalki avatara, Kalki avatara will come. At that time there is no preaching of God consciousness, simply killing, simply killing."

 

From a talk by ACBSP

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" posted by Satyaraj to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat:

 

[Rama:] 'I must to lonely wilds repair, abstain from flesh, and living there on roots, fruit, honey, hermit's food, pass twice seven years (14 yrs.) in solitude. To Bharat's hand the king will yield the regent power I thought to wield, and me, a hermit, will he send my days in Dandak wood to spend.' " -- Ramayana 2:20.

 

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.

 

[Guest guest]

Jay Rama Hari!

 

Is there something different than Hari? A second Hari? No. Sruti vehemently deny this possibility.

 

Imagine that Rama is hunting a deer. He kills a deer everyday and give it as a gift to His beloved father Dasaratha Maharaja. What Rama is killing? A second Hari? Something that is different than Himself? That's impossible. Rama is playing lila and His lila is inconceivable. Reasoning cannot follow it. Hari's 'modus operandi' is beyond our intellect.

 

Now Dasaratha Maharaja is eating deer meat. It is something different than Hari? A second Hari? A deer killed by Rama as His sport is to be considered His prasada. Should Dasaratha avoid it?

 

Dasaratha Maharaja doesn't eat without Rama's company. Rama for certain would take the same kind of meal as His father. Is Rama eating a second Hari? Something different than Himself?

 

Rama eats because He wants to play lila. One should not imagine that Hari is hungry, or that He has some gastronomical preferences, as sruti states that He is atmarama and atmakama. He is self satisfied and always content.

 

So why He is eating? He is eating to fulfill His own lila. To reciprocate love and affection with His beloved father and devotee Dasaratha Maharaja. So, He kills a dear (that is not a second Hari), gives it as a gift to His father (that is not a second Hari) and He eats with him to reciprocate love and affection.

 

Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'?

 

 

[Maitreya 0]

In this discussion of the Lord's eatting habits, let's not forget our place on the menu.

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pändavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

 

PURPORT

 

Although Arjuna knew that Krsna was his friend and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he was puzzled by the various forms exhibited by Krsna. Therefore he asked further about the actual mission of this devastating force. It is written in the Vedas that the Supreme Truth destroys everything, even the brahmanas. As stated in the Katha Upanishad (1.2.25),

 

yasya brahma ca kñatraà ca

ubhe bhavata odanaù

måtyur yasyopasecanaà

ka itthä veda yatra saù

 

Eventually all the brähmanas, ksatriyas and everyone else are devoured like a meal by the Supreme. This form of the Supreme Lord is the all-devouring giant, and here Krsna presents Himself in that form of all-devouring time. Except for a few Pändavas, everyone who was present on that battlefield would be devoured by Him. Arjuna was not in favor of the fight, and he thought it was better not to fight; then there would be no frustration. In reply, the Lord is saying that even if he did not fight, every one of them would be destroyed, for that was His plan. If Arjuna stopped fighting, they would die in another way. Death could not be checked, even if he did not fight. In fact, they were already dead. Time is destruction, and all manifestations are to be vanquished by the desire of the Supreme Lord. That is the law of nature.

 

Bg 11.32

 

[Ananga 0]

JNDas:

 

For what its worth:

 

The Gita Press English edition of Ramayana describes at length of a sage that Ramachandra visits, who prepares a feast of all kinds of animal flesh. I believe they have never been an anti-Hindu publisher.

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Can you understand Hari's 'modus operandi'?

I'll fully admit I can not understand Hari's activities, [and I say this next part somewhat jokingly] especially since I couldn't understand what the point of your post was.

 

Gauracandra

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The Gita Press English edition of Ramayana describes at length of a sage that Ramachandra visits, who prepares a feast of all kinds of animal flesh. I believe they have never been an anti-Hindu publisher.

 

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 unauthorized 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.

 

[animesh 0]

I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita,

 

"The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics."

 

But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat.

 

Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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.

 

[animesh 0]

Ananga ji,

 

I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Regarding the Gita Press edition, could you check if it is definitely Valmiki Ramayana, and if it mentions which recension this text is from.

 

Another problem is that since Ramayana is universally known to have been authored by Valmiki, many books are popularly titled "Valmiki's Ramayana", when they are not actually from that text.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The following references from the Valmiki Ramayana are provided by H.K. Susarla. It makes it quite clear that Rama did not eat meat.

 

chaturdasha hi varShaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |

 

ka.mdamuulaphalairjiivan hitvaa munivadaamiSham || raa 2.20.29 ||

 

Indeed for fourteen years I shall actually live in a lonely forest,

subsisting like ascetics on bulbs, roots and fruits and giving up royal

fare(raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 20.29). (spoken by Shrii Raama to

Kausalyaa prior to His departing for the forest)

 

phalamulashanaa nitya.m bhaviShyaami na sa.mshayaH |

 

na tu duHkha.m kaiShyaami nivasantii tvayaa sadaa || raa 2.27.16 ||

 

I shall without doubt live on fruits and roots (alone) from day to day and

shall not cause any annoyance to you while living with you (raamaayaNa,

ayodhya-kaaNDa, 27.16). (spoken by Siitaa to Raama)

 

patra.m muula.m phala.m yattu alpa.m vaa yadi vaa bahu

 

daasyase svayamaahutya tanme.mR^itarasopamam || raa 2.30.15 ||

 

Anything you will give (me) in the shape of leaves, roots or fruits,

bringing it yourself in a small or large quantity will taste like nectar to

me (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 30.15). (spoken by Siitaa to Raama)

 

na maaturna pitustatra smariShyaami na veshmanaH |

 

aartavaanyupabhu~njaanaa puShpaaNi cha phalaani cha || raa 2.30.16 ||

 

Enjoying there seasonal flowers and fruits too I shall neither remember my

mother nor father nor home (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa 30.16).

 

kushachiiraajinaghara.m phalamuulaashana.m cha maam |

 

viddhi praNihita.m dharme taapasa.m vanagocharam || raa 2.50.44 ||

 

Know me as under a vow to wear (a zone of) Kusha grass, the bark of trees

and deerskin and to subsist on fruits and roots (alone), to practice

austerities and dwell in the forest remaining devoted to piety (raamaayaNa,

ayodhya-kaaNDa, 50.44). (spoken by Shrii Raama to Guha after the former

refused an opulent feast being offered by the latter)

 

pitraa niyuktaa bhagavan prabeShyaamastapovanam |

 

dharmamevaachariShyaamastatra mR^ilphalaashanaaH || raa 2.54.16 ||

 

Ordered by our father, O venerable sage, we shall retire to a forest suited

for austerities and shall practise virtue alone there, living on roots and

fruits (only) (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 54.16). (spoken by Shrii Raama to

sage Bharadwaaja)

 

naanaavighaanannarasaan vanyamuulaphalaashrayaan |

 

tebhyo dadau taptatapaa vaasa.m chaivaabhyakalpayat || raa 2.54.18 ||

 

The sage (who had practised austerities) offered them delicacies of every

description prepared from wild roots and fruits, and also arranged

accommodation for them (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 54.18).

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Regarding the Gita Press edition of Ramayana, I am curious where they suggest the Rishis got the meat from? Were they walking with bows and hunting? Do they provide any further description? The rishis are instructed to live off of roots and certain fruits. There are even passages where a guru condemns his disciple for taking too much fruit from one tree, not thinking about the other animals that should eat from it!

[Guest guest]

Jndas: Just to give an example of what I consider an irrational conclusion, here is an "evidence" posted by Satyaraj to the Dharma Mela forums regarding Rama eating meat...

 

Satyaraj: I had never made this post in Dharma-mela. This is from someone else. You can check it out with the administrator of mela. There is no necessity of passionate personal attacks while discussing these topics.

 

Regarding your criticism that I use to diverge from the issue to speak on bhakti instead of dharma injunctions, this is only due my personal preference in discussions. Did your Guru was a karma-yoga instructor?