You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Oct 2007

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00151 Oct 2007

 
Oct 2007 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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,
Manivannan

On 10/27/07, tatachar@xxxxxxx <tatachar@xxxxxxx> 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


-----Original Message-----
From: man v <manv2005@xxxxxxxxx>
To: sudarsanp@xxxxxxxxx; Tatachar@xxxxxxx; deepak.vinod@xxxxxxxxx; SriRangaSri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vasudevanmg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 8:31 am
Subject: Re: [SriRangaSri] 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@xxxxxxxxx > 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!

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list