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 --- In SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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 > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:SriRangaSri-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:SriRangaSri-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |