Meat is Tamsik, not conducive to Physical or spiritual growth

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

I thought I start a new thread.
What does Shastra say about what we eat? How does it impact our sadhana? is what we eat detrimental to our physical as well as spiritual health? Yam and Niyam are integral part of our dharma our spiritual growth or lack there off is directly related how strictly one adheres to it.

Ahar is closely related to our behaviour we can clearly see that in a child who is fed on junk food becomes hyperactive.

One may argue Shastra do not prohibit meat eating some would even find a verse out of context to prove a point. Off course there are verses explicitly prohibit eating meat I shell try provide that in due course.
SD dharma is unique because it places a lot of responsibility on an individual to make its own judgement as to where his journey will take him/her.

Bhagvat Gita speaks off Ahar in chapter 17 they come in three different modes Satvik rajsik and tamsik
meat would certainly fall in Tamsik mode.

And that action performed in ignorance and delusion without consideration of future bondage or consequences, which inflicts injury and is impractical, is said to be action in the mode of ignorance. 18.25BG
　
Dharma enjoy us to be in mode of goodness and rise above it, getting stuck in the mode of Tamas will certainly not lead us out off it.

One of the leg the dharma stands on is Ahimsa, from which flows daya or Karuna (compassion), it behoves us to have mercy on those creatures, they are not created for our pleasure, we do not need to eat them to survive.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Kumar_Das]

Injury is also inflicted on vegetables.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

What does Shastra say?
　
Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us.
Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4

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

Now the actual prohibition,
1) May I be dear to all animals (Atharva 16.71.4)

2) May you eat rice (Vrihi); may you eat barley (Yava), also black
beans (Mdsa) and Sesamum (Tila). This is the share aloted to both
of you for happy results, 0 you two teeth (dantau), may you not
injure the father and mother. (Atharva - 6-140-2)

3) Do not kill any of the Creatures. (Yaju. L 1)

4) Do not kill the horse. (Yaju. 13.42)

5) May you be illumined by the mighty rags of knowledge and may
you not kill the cow, the aditi (Yaju.13.43)

6) Do not kill a cow but treat her as Mother. (Yaju.12.32)

7)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

Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers!Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319

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 punish such a person.
Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90
　
Manu samhita
51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Injury is also inflicted on vegetables.

Sure but we do not witness the pain that is associated with killing an animal besides Lord Krishna asks us to offer him a fruit a flower a leaf and water in devotion and he would accept that.
so it is up to you

Jai Shree Krishna

[Kumar_Das]

I'm a veggie myself. And in my family if I ever brought home meat to our house, rest assured the elders will skin and then roast me and be real non-veg with their punishment towards me.:p In my tradition, its purely disgusting to eat meat. It's seen as obnoxious and vomit inducing.

Some of the verses you quote says do not eat creatures (which include plants and that means vegetables).;) And others do not say "do not eat the flesh of animals, only eat plants". It says "protect all animals", protecting animals does not exclude you from eating them for food. Just like protecting my wife does not mean I can't have sex with her - (of all means of violence and abuse towards women it is sexual one that is the worst aka rape).;)

Vegetarianism is a cultural phenomenon. Spirituality is also genetic and a expression of our genes(culture). I don't believe that by eating meat as food one cannot realize God or is comitting sin. What matters is how the animal was prepared as food and what sort or parts on an animal you eat.

I don't need to overact and start making non-vegetarians feel guilty.

The people who do this were once non-vegetarian themselves. They either do this because they have some twisted morality crusade to act or because they are upset they cannot taste flesh.:crazy:

Brahmins will actually tell you that meat is a luxury and it infact tastes good.;)

They just realized that abstaining from meat eating and consciously choosing vegetarian based diet makes the mind sharper, the body lighter, increases physical beauty and sexual performance as well as reduces dullness, fatigue and lots of other health issues.

The only difference is that we vegetarian Hindus are pro-vegetarianism and don't condone publicizing / propagating non-vegetarianism. Meat eating is not strictly prohibited and its nothing to get upset about, you just do it on your own if you want to and don't talk too much about it.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: From the Tirukkural

251 - How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?

252 - Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless, nor can compassion be ound in the hearts of those who eat meat.

253 - He who feasts on a creature's flesh is like he who weilds a weapon. Goodness is never one with the minds of these two.

254 - If you ask, What is kindness and what is unkindness?" Is is not-killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous.

255 - Life is perpetuated by not eating meat. The jaws of Hell close on those who do.

256 - If the world did not purchase and consume meat, no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale.

257 - When a man realixes that meat is butchered flesh of another creature, he will abstain from eating it.

258 - Insightful souls who have abandoned the passion to hurt others will not feed on flesh that life has abandoned.

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

260 - All life will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter or savor meat.

Aum Namasivaya

[Kumar_Das]

Sure but we do not witness the pain that is associated with killing an animal

So its all about our ownselves?:eek: Science/common sense makes it obvious that plants do not suffer as much as animals since they do not have a nervous system and cannot bleed. But that doesn't mean that you cannot injure them.



besides Lord Krishna asks us to offer him a fruit a flower a leaf and water in devotion and he would accept that.


Yes. And that could mean plant a flower as a form of worship towards Him.

Father says "sons, I have given you this land to walk upon and live in, but know that this land belongs to Me". Means that even though Father is not hurt when we spoil the land. Still we can try and live with certain moral standards and keep Father's land as beautiful as possible.

Which do you think is better? Plucking a flower or growing a flower in remembrance of Krishna?

Does the verse say "pluck a flower and offer it to a murti?"

[TheOne]

I am a vegetarian but I am also somewhat confused. What is the deal with certain parts of epics Ramayana for example when Rama kills a deer.

If I could I would become a vegan because animals still suffer when we pump hormones into them to make them produce milk and sheep suffer when they are sheared for wool.

Modern society is based on the inflicting of pain on animals. And THAT is what I think the main difference between the Kali Yuga and other ages is.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


I am a vegetarian but I am also somewhat confused. What is the deal with certain parts of epics Ramayana for example when Rama kills a deer.


If you read the Ramayan, you then also would know who that deer was?
Laxman certainly knew that it was Marich a Raksas, the same Marich whom Ram had hit with blunt arrow and sent him a far distance away. this was the time for Marich Moksa Lord Ram killed no deer.

Jai Shree Krishna

[TheOne]

I don't mean that part. I mean when they first enter the forest they create and ashrama and Rama kills a deer to sacrifice to the heavens.

I wonder why?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


I don't mean that part. I mean when they first enter the forest they create and ashrama and Rama kills a deer to sacrifice to the heavens.

I wonder why?


please quote the relevant sloka and from which Ramayan, i have not read in Valmiki Ramayan such an incidence, i refuse to believe Lord Ram coming from lineage of Raghuvansa King Sibi who gave his own flesh to save the dove would carry such an act.

Jai Shree Krishna

[smaranam]

Namaste

WHY GO VEG [voluntarily of course, taking care of one's health, age, at one's own pace] ? And also, without condemning others who are not ready.

Everyone knows, but it is worth iterating.

1. TO BOYCOTT FACTORY FARMING OF ANIMALS.
It backfires on humans - kariye so bhariye , karma , as you sow so you reap : Welcome to GLOBAL WARMING.

How ? To feed the zillion artificially grown animals, you grow zillion crops - fodder (while there are hungry humans and children - a fraction of that crop could go to them instead.) Then the human is at the third level, producer--> consumer-->consumer. The goal is producer --> consumer. All the extra production and consumption is being most responsible for glaciers to melt.

***Factory farming of animals is known (by research) to cause a much larger ecological footprint than cars.***

jIv jAgo.

ELSE

Hunt your own food, then you are just one in the eco-cycle. Do not however, misuse God's gift - intellect, to imprison and slaughter animals by the zillion. This is how man turns more dangerous than the innocent tiger.

End of story.



--------------

As for patram pushpam falam toyam - it is talking about Love for the divine. I agree about flowers - whatever agrees with your conscience - leave them on the trees then.

Offering your food to Him is a personal choice, absolutely. The catch ? You can only offer the best , shuddha sattva. Cannot get yourself to offer junk food to KRushNa can you ? So you eat what you offer - the best.

Not only this, prasAd which has touched the Lord's lips is free of all hinsa to the plants and organisms that died for agriculture, and later while sweeping, grinding, cooking. This refers to yadnya and gratitude to the devtAs - BG Chap 3 .
If one argues about plants, they have to argue about all those organisms. The idea is to minimize hinsa. Go-hatyA Vs. picking fruit is a skewed comparison.

This can be done at the

a) karma yog level (Arjun, everything you eat, do, offer as sacrifice, do it as an offering to me. )
OR
b) shuddha-bhakti level - Like straight from Yashoda's kitchen where MaiyA and group make pakwans for her darling baby, in whose kitchen Radha makes sweet kheer, Lalita cooks savories, and from Radha's kitchen where sakhis make nectarean drinks.

Salilam madhuram kamalam madhuram MadhurAdhipater akhilam madhuram ~

praNAm

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


I'm a veggie myself. And in my family if I ever brought home meat to our house, rest assured the elders will skin and then roast me and be real non-veg with their punishment towards me.:p In my tradition, its purely disgusting to eat meat. It's seen as obnoxious and vomit inducing.

making such statement to make you feel authority on the subject do not wash with me, either you honour your tradition or you rebel against it your choice.



Some of the verses you quote says do not eat creatures (which include plants and that means vegetables).;) And others do not say "do not eat the flesh of animals, only eat plants".

And your point is do not eat, is that what you deduct from the verses?



It says "protect all animals", protecting animals does not exclude you from eating them for food. Just like protecting my wife does not mean I can't have sex with her - (of all means of violence and abuse towards women it is sexual one that is the worst aka rape).;)

what a perverted piece of logic, you would give someone a protection yet happily kill them to eat.
every consenting wife should now cry rape, you really make a great point, i don't know weather to laugh or cry.



I don't believe that by eating meat as food one cannot realize God or is comitting sin.

you are welcome to your belief, weather anyone remaining in Ignorance (Tamas) can realize god is debatable, Bhagvat Gita categorizes meat as Tamas.



What matters is how the animal was prepared as food and what sort or parts on an animal you eat.

perhaps you can tell us how and the source of your information from shastra.



I don't need to overact and start making non-vegetarians feel guilty.

If we are talking Dharma and it makes you feel guilty so be it.



The people who do this were once non-vegetarian themselves. They either do this because they have some twisted morality crusade to act or because they are upset they cannot taste flesh.:crazy:

don't be silly you are insulting all those Dharma Gurus from Sankracharya to Ramdevji who stress the important off vegetarian diet, i have yet to come across one Guru that has enjoyed me to partake in eating meat.
your smilies if it is any indication shows how serious you are.



Brahmins will actually tell you that meat is a luxury and it infact tastes good.;)

Now you are getting annoying, provide some reference or desist from making statement that no one can verify.



They just realized that abstaining from meat eating and consciously choosing vegetarian based diet makes the mind sharper, the body lighter, increases physical beauty and sexual performance as well as reduces dullness, fatigue and lots of other health issues.

again you are insulting the serious nature of Brahmin, what their goals are, it just shows what your respect for Brahmin is.



The only difference is that we vegetarian Hindus are pro-vegetarianism and don't condone publicizing / propagating non-vegetarianism. Meat eating is not strictly prohibited and its nothing to get upset about, you just do it on your own if you want to and don't talk too much about it.

You speak for your self, i do not go out and shout from the roof top to condemn those meat eaters but when we discuss this on a Hindu forum i shell present it as best i can. Dharma stands on four charan(legs) Ahimsa is one off that if this point is missed we will never understand why we choose to be Vegetarian.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

I don't mean that part. I mean when they first enter the forest they create and ashrama and Rama kills a deer to sacrifice to the heavens.

I wonder why?

Here is another verse from the Valmiki Ramayana where Kabandha tells Rama to eat birds:

न उद्विजन्ते नरान् दृष्ट्वा वधस्य अकोविदाः शुभाः॥ ३-७३-१३
घृत पिण्ड उपमान् स्थूलान् तान् द्विजान् भक्षयिष्यथः।

na udvijante narān dṛṣṭvā vadhasya akovidāḥ śubhāḥ || 3-73-13
ghṛta piṇḍa upamān sthūlān tān dvijān bhakṣayiṣyathaḥ |

13b, 14a. vadhasya= of killing - about hunting; a+ kovidaaH= not, experts - artless to avoid hunting; shubhaaH= best - birds; naraan dR^iSTvaa= people, on seeing; na udvijante= un, flustered; ghR^ita piNDa upamaan = ghee, gobs, in simile; sthuulaan taan dvijaan= burly, them, birds; bhakSayiSyathaH= you may savour.

"Thereabout birds will be unflustered on seeing humans, because they are artless to avoid hunting, because none kills them, and you may savour them because those birds will be best and burley, similar to ghee-gobs...

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


I do not know which verse you are talking about and which Ramayana. There are hundreds of Ramayanas, the most authorative is the Valmiki Ramayana. Here is a verse from the Valmiki Ramayana where Kabandha tells Rama to eat birds:

न उद्विजन्ते नरान् दृष्ट्वा वधस्य अकोविदाः शुभाः॥ ३-७३-१३
घृत पिण्ड उपमान् स्थूलान् तान् द्विजान् भक्षयिष्यथः।

na udvijante narān dṛṣṭvā vadhasya akovidāḥ śubhāḥ || 3-73-13
ghṛta piṇḍa upamān sthūlān tān dvijān bhakṣayiṣyathaḥ |

13b, 14a. vadhasya= of killing - about hunting; a+ kovidaaH= not, experts - artless to avoid hunting; shubhaaH= best - birds; naraan dR^iSTvaa= people, on seeing; na udvijante= un, flustered; ghR^ita piNDa upamaan = ghee, gobs, in simile; sthuulaan taan dvijaan= burly, them, birds; bhakSayiSyathaH= you may savour.

"Thereabout birds will be unflustered on seeing humans, because they are artless to avoid hunting, because none kills them, and you may savour them because those birds will be best and burley, similar to ghee-gobs...

This one is very interesting, first let me stress having reached this place Ram is not known to have hunted the birds and eaten them.

i say interesting why? birds here are not hunted because no human kills them, do we seriously think maryada Purshotam would eat them.

i do not expect or get surprised at Raksas suggesting food other then what he would eat. i got that here in the west all the time when i first came here.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Kumar_Das]

Bhagvat Gita categorizes meat as Tamas.


Wait, wait. Where does it say that?



Om Namo Narayana

[Sahasranama]

Yes, I see how this verse is inconclusive, if that was the only evidence in the Ramayana of Valmiki. But there are other verses as well in the Ramayana. Condemning meat eaters to yakshas and rakshasas is thus insulting to Sri Rama who was also a meat eater. I will quote these verses only for better understanding of the shastras, not because I promote meat eating. I am a vegetarian and will remain one, even after reading these verses.

तौ तत्र हत्वा चतुरः महा मृगान्।
वराहम् ऋश्यम् पृषतम् महा रुरुम्।
आदाय मेध्यम् त्वरितम् बुभुक्षितौ।
वासाय काले ययतुर् वनः पतिम्॥ २-५२-१०२

tau tatra hatvā caturaḥ mahā mṛgān |
varāham ṛśyam pṛṣatam mahā rurum |
ādāya medhyam tvaritam bubhukṣitau|
vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaḥ patim || 2-52-102

102. hatvaa= having killed; tatra= there; chaturaH= four; mR^igaan= deer (namely); varaaham= Varaaha; R^ishyam= Risya; pR^ishhatam= PR^isata; mahaaruru= (and) Mahaaruru; (the four principal species of deer); aadayaa= and taking; tvaritam= quickly; medhyam= the portions that were pure; tou= Rama and Lakshmana; bubhukshhitou= being hungry as they were; yayatuH= reached; vanaspatim= a tree; vaasayaa= to take rest; kaale= in the evening.
Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.

क्रोशमात्रम् ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्श्मनौ॥ २-५५-३३
बहून्मेध्यान् मृगान् हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने।

krośamātram tato gatvā bhrātarau rāmalakśmanau || 2-55-33
bahūnmedhyān mṛgān hatvā ceraturyamunāvane |

33. tataH= thereafter; gatvaa= having travelled; kroshamaatram= only a couple of miles; bhraatarau= the two brothers; raamalakshhmaNau= Rama and Lakshmana; hatvaa= killed; bahuun= many; medhyaan= consecrated; mR^igaan= deer; cheratuH= and ate; yamunaavane= in the river-forest of Yamuna.
Thereafter having travelled only a couple of miles the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many consecrated deer and ate in the river-forest of Yamuna.


इणेयम् श्रपयस्वैतच्च्चालाम् यक्श्यमहे वयम्।
त्वरसौम्य मुहूर्तोऽयम् ध्रुवश्च दिवसोऽप्ययम्॥ २-५६-२५
iṇeyam śrapayasvaitacccālām yakśyamahe vayam |
tvarasaumya muhūrto'yam dhruvaśca divaso'pyayam || 2-56-25


25. saumya= Oh, great brother!; shrapayasva= boil; etat= this; aiNeyam= antelope’s meat; vayam= we; yakshyaamahe= shall worship; shaalaam= the leaf-hut; ayam= this; divasaH= day; ayam= (and) this; muhuurtaH api= instant also; dhruvaH= are of a distinctive character; tvara= be quick.
“Oh, gentle brother! Boil this antelope’s meat. We shall worship the leaf-hut. This day and this instant also are of a distinctive character. Be quick.”

स लक्ष्मणः कृष्ण मृगम् हत्वा मेध्यम् पतापवान्।
अथ चिक्षेप सौमित्रिः समिद्धे जात वेदसि॥ २-५६-२६
sa lakṣmaṇaḥ kṛṣṇa mṛgam hatvā medhyam patāpavān |
atha cikṣepa saumitriḥ samiddhe jāta vedasi || 2-56-26

atha= then; saH lakshmaNaH= that Lakshmana; prataapavaan= the strong man; saumitriH= and son of Sumitra; hatvaa= killing; medhyam= the holy; kR^iSNa mR^igam= black antelope; chikSepa= tossed; jaata vedasi= in a fire; samiddhe= ignited.
Then, Lakshmana the strong man and son of Sumitra, killing a holy back antelope, tossed it in an ignited fire.

तम् तु पक्वम् समाज्ञाय निष्टप्तम् चिन्न शोणितम्।
लक्ष्मणः पुरुष व्याघ्रम् अथ राघवम् अब्रवीत्॥ २-५६-२७
tam tu pakvam samājñāya niṣṭaptam cinna śoṇitam |
lakṣmaṇaḥ puruṣa vyāghram atha rāghavam abravīt || 2-56-27

27. parijJNaaya= feeling certain; pakvam= it is cooked; niSTaptam= and heated thoroughly; chinna shoNitam= with no blood remaining; lakshmaNaH= Lakshmana; atha= thereafter; abraviit= spoke; raaghavam= to Rama; puruSa vyaaghram= the lion among men (as follows).
Feeling certain that it is cooked and heated thoroughly with no blood remaining, Lakshmana spoke to Rama the lion among man as follows:

अयम् कृष्णः समाप्त अन्गः शृतः कृष्ण मृगो यथा।
देवता देव सम्काश यजस्व कुशलो हि असि॥ २-५६-२८
ayam kṛṣṇaḥ samāpta angaḥ śṛtaḥ kṛṣṇa mṛgo yathā |
devatā deva samkāśa yajasva kuśalo hi asi || 2-56-28

28. ayam= this; kR^iSNaH mR^igo= black antelope; samaapta angaH= with its complete limbs; shR^itaH= has been cooked; sarvaH= completely; mayaa= by me; deva damkaasha= Oh Rama, remsembling god!; yajasva= worship; devataaH= the deities; asi ahi= you are indeed; kushalaH= skilled (in such act)
“This black antelope, with its complete limbs, has been cooked completely by me. Oh, Rama resembling God! Worship the concerned deity, as you are skilled in that act.”

तां तथा दर्शयित्वा तु मैथिलीं गिरिनिम्नगाम्।
निषसाद गिरिप्रस्थे सीतां मांसेन चन्दयन्॥ २-९६-१
tāṁ tathā darśayitvā tu maithilīṁ girinimnagām |
niṣasāda giriprasthe sītāṁ māṁsena candayan || 2-96-1

1. tathaa= thus; darshayitvaa= having shown; girinimnagaam= the mountaneous river Mandakini; taam siitaam= to that Seetha; maithiliim= the daughter of the king of Mithila; niSasaada= sat; giriprashthe= on the hill side; chhandayan= in order to gratify her appetite; maamsena= with flesh.
Having shown Mandakini River in that manner to Seetha, the daughter of Mithila, Rama set on the hill-side in order to gratify her appetite with a piece of flesh.

इदं मेध्यमिदं स्वादु निष्टप्तमिदमग्निना।
एवमास्ते स धर्मात्मा सीतया सह राघवः॥ २-९६-२
idaṁ medhyamidaṁ svādu niṣṭaptamidamagninā |
evamāste sa dharmātmā sītayā saha rāghavaḥ || 2-96-2

2. saH raaghavaH= that Rama; dharmaatmaa= of righteousness; aaste= stayed; siitayaa sha= with Seetha; evam= thus speaking; idam= this meat; madhyam= is fresh; idam= this; niSTaptam= was roasted; agninaa= in the fire.
Rama, whose mind was devoted to righteousness stayed there with Seetha, saying; "This meat is fresh, this is savoury and roasted in the fire."

तत्र रामम् भयम् तीव्रम् आविवेश विषादजम्।
राक्षसम् मृग रूपम् तम् हत्वा श्रुत्वा च तत् स्वनम्॥ ३-४४-२६
tatra rāmam bhayam tīvram āviveśa viṣādajam |
rākṣasam mṛga rūpam tam hatvā śrutvā ca tat svanam || 3-44-26

26. mR^iga ruupam tam raakSasam hatvaa= in deer's, form, that, demon, on killing; tat svanam shrutvaa ca= his, yelling [of demon,] on hearing, also; tatra= in that matter; raamam= to Rama; viSaada jam tiivram bhayam = by gloom, caused, frantic, fear; aavivesha= ensorcelled.
On killing that demon in the form of Golden Deer, and also on hearing his yelling, Rama is ensorcelled with a frantic fear caused by his own gloom. [3-44-26]

निहत्य पृषतम् च अन्यम् मांसम् आदाय राघवः।
त्वरमाणो जनस्थानम् ससार अभिमुखः तदा॥ ३-४४-२७
nihatya pṛṣatam ca anyam māṁsam ādāya rāghavaḥ |
tvaramāṇo janasthānam sasāra abhimukhaḥ tadā || 3-44-27


27. tadaa= then; raaghavaH= Raghava; anyam= another one; pR^iSatam nihatya ca= spotted deer, on killing, also; maamsam aadaaya= its flesh, on taking; tvaramaaNaH= hurrying himself; janasthaanam abhimukhaH sasaara= to Janasthaana, towards, he drifted, proceeded.
Raghava then on killing another spotted deer and on taking its flesh, he hurried himself towards Janasthaana. [3-44-27]

समाश्वस मुहूर्तम् तु शक्यम् वस्तुम् इह त्वया॥ ३-४७-२२
आगमिष्यति मे भर्ता वन्यम् आदाय पुष्कलम्।
रुरून् गोधान् वराहान् च हत्वा आदाय अमिषान् बहु॥ ३-४७-२३
samāśvasa muhūrtam tu śakyam vastum iha tvayā || 3-47-22
āgamiṣyati me bhartā vanyam ādāya puṣkalam |
rurūn godhān varāhān ca hatvā ādāya amiṣān bahu || 3-47-23

(Sita talking to Ravana before she got kidnapped) "Be comfortable for a moment, here it is possible for you to make a sojourn, and soon my husband will be coming on taking plentiful forest produce, and on killing stags, mongooses, wild boars he fetches meat, aplenty. [3-47-22b, 23]

रामो अथ सह सौमित्रिः वनम् यात्वा स वीर्यवान्।
स्थूलान् हत्वा महा रोहीन् अनु तस्तार तम् द्विजम्॥ ३-६८-३२
rāmo atha saha saumitriḥ vanam yātvā sa vīryavān |
sthūlān hatvā mahā rohīn anu tastāra tam dvijam || 3-68-32

32. atha= then; viiryavaan raamaH= resolute one, Rama; saha saumitriH= with, Soumitri; vanam yaatvaa= to forest, on going; sthuulaan mahaa rohiin hatvaa= robust-bodied, big, Rohi [or, Kesari animals,] on killing - hunted; tam dvijam= for him, the bird; saH= he; anutastaara= spread sacred grass - to place offerings.

Then that resolute Rama on going into forest along with Soumitri hunted a robust-bodied, big Rohi animal, or, Kesari animal, and then he spread sacred grass on ground to place that offering to the deceased soul of that bird. [3-68-32]

रोहि मांसानि च उद्धृत्य पेशी कृत्वा महायशाः।
शकुनाय ददौ रामो रम्ये हरित शाद्वले॥ ३-६८-३३
rohi māṁsāni ca uddhṛtya peśī kṛtvā mahāyaśāḥ |
śakunāya dadau rāmo ramye harita śādvale || 3-68-33

33. mahaayashaaH= highly renowned one - for his observance of religious ceremonies; raamaH= Rama; rohi maamsaani= Rohi animal's, meat; uddhR^itya= pulling out; peshii kR^itvaa= to gobbets, on lumping it; ramye harita shaadvale= on pleasant, greenish, on pastures; shakunaaya dadau= for the bird [Jataayu,] gave [as offering.]
On drawing up the flesh of that Rohi animal and lumping it to gobbets, that highly observant Rama placed those gobbets on pleasant greenish pasturelands as obsequial offerings in respect of that bird Jataayu. [3-68-33]

न उद्विजन्ते नरान् दृष्ट्वा वधस्य अकोविदाः शुभाः॥ ३-७३-१३
घृत पिण्ड उपमान् स्थूलान् तान् द्विजान् भक्षयिष्यथः।
na udvijante narān dṛṣṭvā vadhasya akovidāḥ śubhāḥ || 3-73-13
ghṛta piṇḍa upamān sthūlān tān dvijān bhakṣayiṣyathaḥ |

13b, 14a. vadhasya= of killing - about hunting; a+ kovidaaH= not, experts - artless to avoid hunting; shubhaaH= best - birds; naraan dR^iSTvaa= people, on seeing; na udvijante= un, flustered; ghR^ita piNDa upamaan = ghee, gobs, in simile; sthuulaan taan dvijaan= burly, them, birds; bhakSayiSyathaH= you may savour.

"Thereabout birds will be unflustered on seeing humans, because they are artless to avoid hunting, because none kills them, and you may savour them because those birds will be best and burley, similar to ghee-gobs... [3-73-13b, 14a]

रोहितान् वक्र तुण्डान् च नल मीनान् च राघव॥ ३-७३-१४
पंपायाम् इषुभिः मत्स्यान् तत्र राम वरान् हतान्।
निस्त्वक्पक्षानयसतप्तानकृशान्नैककण्टकान् - यद्वा -
निः त्वक् पक्षान् अयस तप्तान् अकृशान् न अनेक कण्टकान्॥ ३-७३-१५
तव भक्त्या समायुक्तो लक्ष्मणः संप्रदास्यति।
भृशम् तान् खादतो मत्स्यान् पंपायाः पुष्प संचये॥ ३-७३-१६
rohitān vakra tuṇḍān ca nala mīnān ca rāghava || 3-73-14
paṁpāyām iṣubhiḥ matsyān tatra rāma varān hatān |
nistvakpakṣānayasataptānakṛśānnaikakaṇṭakān - yadvā -
niḥ tvak pakṣān ayasa taptān akṛśān na aneka kaṇṭakān || 3-73-15
tava bhaktyā samāyukto lakṣmaṇaḥ saṁpradāsyati |
bhṛśam tān khādato matsyān paṁpāyāḥ puṣpa saṁcaye || 3-73-16


14b, 15, 16a. raaghava= oh, Raghava; raama= oh, Rama; tatra pampaayaam= therein, in Pampa Lake; iSubhiH hataan= with arrow, on skewering; varaan= best ones; niH tvak pakSaan= without, skin [scales,] wings [fins, descaling and de- finning]; ayasa taptaan= with iron rod, on broiling; a+ kR^ishaan ca= not, scraggy, also; na aneka kaNTakaan= not, many, with thorns [with fish-bones]; matsyaan = fishes; rohitaan= red-carps [cyprinus carpio]; vakra tuNDaan= blunt, snouted [small eatable porpoises]; nala miinaan ca= a sort of sprat, also; lakSmaNaH= Lakshmana; bhaktyaa samaayuktaH = reverence, along with - reverentially; tava= to you; sampradaasyati = will offer.

"Oh, Rama in that Pampa Lake there are best fishes, red-carps, and blunt-snouted small porpoises, and a sort of sprats, which are neither scraggy, nor with many fish-bones. Lakshmana will reverentially offer them to you on skewering them with arrow, and on broiling them on iron rod of arrow after descaling and de-finning them. [3-73-14b, 15, 16a]

पद्म गन्धि शिवम् वारि सुख शीतम् अनामयम्।
उद्धृत्य स तदा अक्लिष्टम् रूप्य स्फटिक सन्निभम्॥ ३-७३-१७
अथ पुष्कर पर्णेन लक्ष्मणः पाययिष्यति।
padma gandhi śivam vāri sukha śītam anāmayam |
uddhṛtya sa tadā akliṣṭam rūpya sphaṭika sannibham || 3-73-17
atha puṣkara parṇena lakṣmaṇaḥ pāyayiṣyati |


16b, 18a. bhR^isham= many [stomachful, to satiety]; taan matsyaan= those, fishes; khaadataH= while eating; puSpa sancaye= [one in the] flowers', bunches of; padma gandhi= lotus, scented; shivam= pellucid; sukha shiitam= comfortably, cool; anaamayam= without disease [uncontaminated]; sa tadaa akliSTam= that, that way, unadulterated [pristine water]; ruupya sphaTika sannibham= silver, crystal, in shine; pampaayaaH vaari= Pampa Lake's, water; atha lakSmaNaH= then, Lakshmana; puSkara parNena= with lotus, leaf; uddhR^itya= on lifting up; paayayiSyati= [to you] he offers.

"While you eat those fishes to satiety, Lakshmana will offer you the water of Pampa Lake, which will be in the bunches of flowers of that lake, and which will be lotus-scented, pellucid, comfortably cool, shiny like silver and crystal, uncontaminated and that way pristine, by lifting it up that water with lotus leaf, making that leaf a stoup-like basin... [3-73-16b, 17, 18a]

पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव।
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः॥ १-१७-३९
paṁca paṁca nakhā bhakṣyā brahma kṣatreṇa rāghava |
śalyakaḥ śvāvidho godhā śaśaḥ kūrmaḥ ca paṁcamaḥ || 1-17-39

39. raaghava= oh, Raghava; brahma kSatreNa= by Brahmans, Kshatriya-s; shalyakaH= a wild-rodent with defensive quills; shvaavidhaH= a kind of boar that kills dogs, wolves etc; godhaa= a lizard with unimaginable grip; shashaH= hare; pancamaH kuurmaH ca= fifthly, tortoise, also; panca= five [kinds of]; panca nakhaa= five nailed animals; bhakSyaa= are edible.

"Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. [4-17-39]

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


GaneshPrasad it appears that you are intellectually challenged. If I may ask how old are you? I also sense a lack of maturity. Surely you cannot be more than 30.

I am intellectually bereft but i fail to see what my age got to do with anything, you could not be so wrong in assuming my age.



Wait, wait. Where does it say that?

well not quite directly but is infered here it is

yata-yamam gata-rasam
puti paryusitam ca yat
ucchistam api camedhyam
bhojanam tamasa-priyam

yata-yamam--food cooked three hours before being eaten; gata-rasam--tasteless; puti--bad smelling; paryusitam--decomposed; ca--also; yat--that which; ucchistam--remnants of food eaten by others; api--also; ca--and; amedhyam--untouchable; bhojanam--eating; tamasa--in the mode of darkness; priyam--dear.
Food cooked more than three hours before being eaten, which is tasteless, stale, putrid, decomposed and unclean, is food liked by people in the mode of ignorance. gita by Prabhupad

another source
The foods liked by Taamasika persons are half-cooked, tasteless, rotten, stale, refuses, and impure (such as meat and alcohol). (17.10)

Jai shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Yes, I see how this verse is inconclusive, if that was the only evidence in the Ramayana of Valmiki. But there are other verses as well in the Ramayana. Condemning meat eaters to yakshas and rakshasas is thus insulting to Sri Rama who was also a meat eater. I will quote these verses only for better understanding of the shastras, not because I promote meat eating. I am a vegetarian and will remain one, even after reading these verses.



I must say you have stumped me here, i have read Valmiki Ramayan in Gujarati i don't remember reading those verses.

I am more familiar with Tulsidas Manas having read many times.
for the moment i will desist from commenting on this thread, my faith has been stirred as never before, i will have to go back and contemplate and seek answers, henceforth i will observe silence on the subject.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

I apologise for shaking your faith, I remember being stirred reading something similar when I was 16 years old. These verses for me serve to remove my superiority complex as a vegetarian, not my resolve to remain vegetarian or my devotion towards bhagavan Shri Rama.

[TheOne]

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga56/ayodhya_56_frame.htm


21-23

I don't mean to criticize I just wish to know.

[Sahasranama]

Animal sacrifice has always been part of vedic culture, but due to influence of reform movements most Hindu beliefs have been "sanitised." I have a version of the Valmiki Ramayana from the Arya Samaj (reform movement) and around 5/6 of the scripture is edited out, I also have another translation where the verses are not translated properly to avoid controversy among people.

I remember during my upanayana sanskaar I recieved a piece of deer skin from my guru. Old member sambya has made me aware that even ashtagandha (mix of eight powders) that is offered to Vishnu has animal ingredients (musk).

[TheOne]

Then how can say killing an animal for eating is worse than killing an animal for a sacrifice. Both involve inflicting pain and the taking of a life.

[Sahasranama]

Then how can say killing an animal for eating is worse than killing an animal for a sacrifice. Both involve inflicting pain and the taking of a life. The sacrificial animals in yajnas are said to go to the heavens.

The translation of the vedas that have been provided earlier are not proper translations, the vedas do not prohibit meat eating. Vegetarianism is recommended, but ultimate it's a personal choice, not something mandatory. Some scriptures mention that meat can be eaten after sprinkling it water after reciting mantras. Manu sums it up nicely:

न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने।
प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला॥
na māṁsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
pravṛttireṣā bhūtānāṁ nivṛttistu mahāphalā ||

"There is no sin for living beings in eating meat nor is there sin in drinking alcohol or having sex, but abstaining from them will bring great results."

[Eastern Mind]

Then how can say killing an animal for eating is worse than killing an animal for a sacrifice. Both involve inflicting pain and the taking of a life.

Vannakkam TheOne: Obviously, as with a lot of moral or ethical ideas within SD, there will be a wide variety of opinion. We have seen it here, and there is a lot more. One has to remember that the religion is vast. The Thirukkural which I quoted was written about 2200 years ago, supposedly, and at least in that corner of the earth, Tiruvalluvar spoke of vegetarianism. That does not mean he was right or wrong. We have scriptures for, scriptures against, Gurus for, Gurus against, communities for, communities against. In the end it is up to you and you alone. When scriptures are used for guidance, but then we find contradictions, what choice do we have but to rely on our own guts (pun intended)?

Personally, I choose to ignore scriptures, communities, doctors, scholars, other Hindus, friends, wellwishers, and any other method through which meat eating is advocated.

Others are exactly the opposite, and will seek out any such source where it is advocated.

Best wishes going within and deciding what is right for you.

Aum Namasivaya

[Sahasranama]

Others are exactly the opposite, and will seek out any such source where it is advocated. I have done this here to bring some balance in the conversation. I do not advocate meat eating. I could quote injunctions to eat vegetarian as well, but not from the veda samhitas themselves, unless I use translations of Hindu reformers of the 19th century which are severely contrived in order to fit certain ideals of colonial neo-Hinduism. This was only done because these reformers only accepted the vedas exclusively. This is called vedic fundamentalism and I do not support this, ultimately it's better to take a honest look at what the scriptures have to say.

[sm78]

Thanks Sahasranama, you have added much sense in what was another senseless discussion on this favourite topic of HDF.

[sm78]

. I am more familiar with Tulsidas Manas having read many times.

Tulsidas added a disclamer in his ramacharitmanas that it was how he (Tulisdas) perceived Rama. Even he knew and made it clear that he was not narrating the actual Ramayana


for the moment i will desist from commenting on this thread, my faith has been stirred as never before, i will have to go back and contemplate and seek answers, henceforth i will observe silence on the subject.
Hope you come out of it and able to see that SD culture was not what we have made it today. It was much more like a free western democracy that we like to bash here, except with a spiritual angle. What we defend as SD today are nothing but victorian morals and decadent medieval sentimentalism. It is also necessary to understand that the religion and culture of the time of Rama is no more extant and what we have now are far more recent and acquired morals super-imposed on ancient stories.

[devotee]

Namaste Sahas,


The sacrificial animals in yajnas are said to go to the heavens.

The translation of the vedas that have been provided earlier are not proper translations, the vedas do not prohibit meat eating. Vegetarianism is recommended, but ultimate it's a personal choice, not something mandatory. Some scriptures mention that meat can be eaten after sprinkling it water after reciting mantras. Manu sums it up nicely:

न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने।
प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला॥
na māṁsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
pravṛttireṣā bhūtānāṁ nivṛttistu mahāphalā ||

"There is no sin for living beings in eating meat nor is there sin in drinking alcohol or having sex, but abstaining from them will bring great results."

That is a very good post ! :)

We should also remember that there is no single formula for each and every one to follow in Hinduism.

If you are a Vaishnava, Shaiva or an Advaitin then you will have to leave meat eating for your spiritual progress. If you are a common Hindu then it all depends upon you to decide. If you are Aghori, Vaammaargi or Shakta then meat eating is as good as eating anything else ... in fact, in some cases, it may be compulsory.

OM

[Adhvagat]

Meat may be considered as a luxury by a brahmin but perhaps not in the current state of things, since in the industry it is just tamasic decomposed food (not much to argue about that). I'm not sure if it's considered a sin to eat a bovine's meat (and also other animals) that died of natural causes, how is it viwed on India?


The sacrificial animals in yajnas are said to go to the heavens.

The translation of the vedas that have been provided earlier are not proper translations, the vedas do not prohibit meat eating. Vegetarianism is recommended, but ultimate it's a personal choice, not something mandatory. Some scriptures mention that meat can be eaten after sprinkling it water after reciting mantras. Manu sums it up nicely:

न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने।
प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला॥
na māṁsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
pravṛttireṣā bhūtānāṁ nivṛttistu mahāphalā ||

"There is no sin for living beings in eating meat nor is there sin in drinking alcohol or having sex, but abstaining from them will bring great results."

ISKCON also likes to stress that yajnas are not this yuga-dharma and also in Kali-yuga there are no souls to carry the sacrifice properly.


GaneshPrasad it appears that you are intellectually challenged. If I may ask how old are you? I also sense a lack of maturity. Surely you cannot be more than 30.

Kumar Das, are you trolling? ;)

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste all,

I have to say that this thread has changed my perspective. I have always viewed meat-eating as a sort of sinful adharmic act. But now it is clear that I am wrong.

I am not all the way through reading and watching the Ramayana yet, but I remember the verse about Lord Rama and the deer. I also remember another part where King Dasaratha told a story shortly before he died about when he was younger and he was out hunting and a sage put a curse on him. The way it was portrayed was like hunting was a normal acceptable practice back then.

One thing I have thought about is that if Lord Rama and Sita and Lakshman ate meat, that was because they were forest-dwellers who were living as wandering hermits in the forest and not able to grow their own food very consistently. But that doesn't explain why it was acceptable for King Dasaratha to go out hunting when he was younger. I suppose it was just an acceptable and common practice back then for Hindus to hunt and eat meat? I remember watching a documentary (I believe it was The Story of India) that said that most ancient Indians ate meat. Again, I just presumed that was so because they were not agriculturally advanced enough back then to grow all of their food and live on a strictly vegetarian diet. But that does not seem to be correct.


Animal sacrifice has always been part of vedic culture, but due to influence of reform movements most Hindu beliefs have been "sanitised."

But I wonder why is that so? Why was their a need to "sanitize" the religion? Is Sanatana Dharma not perfect? Should we not look to the past Vedic ages as a glorious time? Why then were perspectives on meat-eating changed? I assume that was when ahimsa became a central concept of Hinduism. Was it not that important of a tenet before?



"There is no sin for living beings in eating meat nor is there sin in drinking alcohol or having sex, but abstaining from them will bring great results."

I like that quote. I suppose that sums it up.


Jai Sri Ram

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sahasranama and all
　
I was down but not out, although my illusion of Lord Ram has been shattered a bit and I am still reeling from it, I am sure with the grace off Lord Ram I would be able to ride this storm.

I am not perturbed by the fact that Vedas prescribed animal sacrifice weather actual or symbolic, under strict rule and always for the benefit for all.

I am also aware, although not prepared for Ram(true or not), to engage in animal sport for Kshtriya. King Dashrath went hunting and many other kings have done it as we read in puranas, somehow Kshtriya have a right, under certain circumstances to go hunting to keep up their fighting skills. I am not finding an excuse because I still find it strange that Lord Ram hunted at all specially coming from Kula of King Sibi who gave his own flesh to save a dove.

tiirtheShu pratidriiShTeShu raajaa medhyaan pashuun vane
yaavadarthamala.m lubdho hanyaad iti imamate - Bhagavata Purana 4.26.6

"If a king is too attracted to eating flesh, he may, according to the directions of the revealed scriptures on sacrificial performances, go to the forest and kill some animals that are recommended for killing. One is not allowed to kill animals unnecessarily or without restrictions. The Vedas regulate animal-killing to stop the extravagance of foolish men influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance."

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

Did Ram really eat meat? I am convinced he did not for the following reasons

translation from the Valmiki Ramayana by H.K. Susarla.

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).

Some say Meat instead off Royal fare but that can be refuted for few reasons

1)There was no need for him to give up meat; forest would have given him ample opportunity and he is an expert archer, so I am happy with above translation.
　
2) Ram is taking leave of his mother Traditionally, in Vedic culture, when a son leaves home to go to distant lands, he reassures his parents, that he would abide by strict moral codes and never deviate from the religious principles. Say a student promises his parents when going to stay in the hostel, "I won't drink alcohol while in the hostel." Does this mean that he is drinking it while at home? Obviously not. Similarly it's in this mood that Lord Rama assures His mother that he wouldn't stoop low.

3)It is not Amishaam(आमिषम् ) in the in 2-20-29 it is munivadaamiSham(ascetics= munis).."Like munis"...


In any case it is clear from above he intends to live like ascetics which was the condition and thus subsisting on bulbs, roots and fruits.

Remember all the while 'Pran jaye pan vachan naa jaye.' Ram would never go back on his words.


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).
　
Mother Sita is clear what they would be eating in the forest


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)

Lord Ram reiterate his resolve of subsisting on fruits and root alone refusing Guha’s offer and confirming the same to Bharadwaaja muni, therefore it makes no sense that he would eat meat further down the road.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Further proof that he did not eat meat is nicely presented by Stephen knapp.

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

Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki’s Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana or Sita ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating meat. The evidence for this is as follows:

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.
　
Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Shasranama and all

Now I like to shed some doubt on the verses that Shasranama has provided

Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.2-52-102

Above verse is not long after leaving Guha refusing his offer of food, reaching other side, seeing the field with nice crops and the next verse they are hunting, this just don’t make sense why hunt, If they are not going to eat?

where was mother sita? Rama would not leave her by her self, these questions makes me wonder if it belongs here in the Ramayan.


krośamātram tato gatvā bhrātarau rāmalakśmanau || 2-55-33
bahūnmedhyān mṛgān hatvā ceraturyamunāvane |


The translation has an error the word चेरतु means roamed not ate hence it should read roamed in the river forest of Yamuna

Rest of the verses deals with offering or sacrifice to Gods, it does not prove he ate meat, there is no question of him eating it anyway, unless he is telling lies to his mother, Guha and Bharadwaaj muni.


The translation of the vedas that have been provided earlier are not proper translations, the vedas do not prohibit meat eating.

Perhaps you be kind enough to provide your own proper translations.



Vegetarianism is recommended, but ultimate it's a personal choice, not something mandatory.
Some scriptures mention that meat can be eaten after sprinkling it water after reciting mantras. Manu sums it up nicely:

The whole life is a personal choice let alone eating habits, to be or not to be, Krishna says resort to Shastra.



na māṁsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
pravṛttireṣa bhūtānāṁ nivṛttistu mahāphalā ||56

"There is no sin for living beings in eating meat nor is there sin in drinking alcohol or having sex, but abstaining from them will bring great results."

This makes no sense when in the preceding verse he clearly say thus
Chapter V

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

53. He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).
　
　
Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

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.”Namaste Ganeshprasad,

These words were proclaimed by Hanuman to Sita after she was abducted. It is clear from the context that Rama has given up meat out of depression. The following verses say:

"With his mind wholly devoted to you, Rama is not even driving away forest-flies from his body, nor mosquitoes nor insects nor reptiles from his body. Rama always cogitates on something or the other. He is forever engaged in sorrow. He is enamoured with the god of love and thinks of nothing else. Rama mostly does not have sleep. Even if that best of men sleeps, he keeps awake uttering sweet words like "lo! Behold! Seetha!" When he happens to see a fruit or a flower or any other beautiful object, he recollects of you and says 'O beloved!' many times and breathes a sigh."

If it meant Rama never eats meat, Hanuman would not need to narrate this to Sita, she is his wife and would have already known that. It is clear that Hanuman is narrating to Sita what Rama is doing out of grief. Moreover if it meant Rama never ate meat, then there would be a contradiction with the verses I have provided earlier.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sahasranama

It is also possible that one who is in sorrow would easily resort to things that one normally would not do and that is what Hanuman was convening to mother Sita.

Talking about contradictions , the verses you provided are also clashing with what Ram told Kaushlya Guha and sage Bharadwaaj.

To think Ram, the very name that gives all pleasure, was actually depressed is laughable but thats another story.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Adhvagat]

Funny, while people quickly point that passages where some vedic personalities drink alcohol it is altered by anti-hindus, talking about meat a clearly tamasic and hellish practice of killing an animal it is viewed as hindu.

I'm sorry, that sounds just wrong.

[Sahasranama]

Funny, while people quickly point that passages where some vedic personalities drink alcohol it is altered by anti-hindus, talking about meat a clearly tamasic and hellish practice of killing an animal it is viewed as hindu.

I'm sorry, that sounds just wrong.

I'm sorry too, but thinking of yourself as a bhakta of Raghunandana while trying cover up parts of His leela out of shame, that is just wrong according to me. His leela is known through shastra, not through imposing our own ideals on his kathamrita.

[Adhvagat]

So let's talk specifics... What makes certain parts altered by anti-hindus and others that talk of more questionable things purely hindu?

Another thing is to consider meat (and animal killing) as in vedic society:

- Hunting as a practice by kshatriya clans. (?)
- Meat as animals sacrificed on Yajnas.
- Meat not produced in the same way as modern industrial society.
- Who were the main meat eaters? Shudras and adharmis perhaps? Excluding tantrik practices.

I think given the current global situation regarding meat, giving it a public Hindu sanction can be a great disservice.

[Sahasranama]

So let's talk specifics... What makes certain parts altered by anti-hindus and others that talk of more questionable things purely hindu?

Another thing is to consider meat (and animal killing) as in vedic society:

- Hunting as a practice by kshatriya clans. (?)
- Meat as animals sacrificed on Yajnas.
- Meat not produced in the same way as modern industrial society.
- Who were the main meat eaters? Shudras and adharmis perhaps? Excluding tantrik practices.

I think given the current global situation regarding meat, giving it a public Hindu sanction can be a great disservice.

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

Empty your cup, then read the Ramayana... and then you can drink from it.

[Adhvagat]

Hmmm... Well, my points on that post are not exactly affirmations, more like proposed debate topics and the question on the first line is sincere, sorry if it's ignorant.

Anyway, I'm not in the best of my moods, if I figure out with what my cup is full and what exactly is my cup perhaps I can answer you better.

And if you feel like adding something clearer or more developed, please do, I'll be grateful.

[Sahasranama]

I do not want to sound smug, but you were changing the subject so abruptly. Answering those question will not help us to figure out the meaning of the Ramayana, because the current situation of the bio industry and the environment and our ideas regarding this subject should have no influence on how we translate the Shastras. This filtering through the ideals of the time of the shashtras happened in 19th century India and we are still reaping its fruit. But maybe you were trying to avoid talking about that subject and if so, I apologise for the above post.

[Adhvagat]

It's not how to translate shastras differently, but how to present them publicly having in mind what is going to be best for our current global situation. After all, why easily give the ruthless a divine sanction for a condemnable act? Adaptation and focus, not adulteration.

However, I can't even begin to discuss this because I don't know anything besides from what people offer and my first question still stands, what makes claim X (the example of the alcohol drinks) adulteration and claim Y (meat) valid? Perhaps they are both separate things with no correlation, X being really an adulteration and Y being true to the shastras (even though I've seen people wondering if shastras could be mishandled without traces). But well, since I know so little perhaps it's better to abstain from talking about it at all.

[Sahasranama]

But well, since I know so little perhaps it's better to abstain from talking about it at all.I am sorry if I gave you that impression, if you have any questions you should post them of course. I might not be able to answer them though. I was laser focused on one subject, while I was posting I was comparing different translations I have at home in Hindi and some english translations found on the Internet, while also looking through some of the classical commentaries on the Ramayana, all to make sure I am not posting nonsense.

I am going to eat a veggie burger now with salad and orange juice (no meat or alcohol), maybe I'll be posting another time on this subject.

[Adhvagat]

I spent the whole day inhaling smoke from bloody cigarretes, that definitely shook my mood. Pure air of my bedroom is getting me back at myself.

Sahasranama, well, I don't have at my disposal the texts and/or the linguistic knowledge to study and compare most of these texts. That's why I said what I said.

My questions were spread all over those posts, maybe not coherent and properly connected (but that's me most of the time), but what I've seen was the refutal of what has been called misconceptions or adulterations on other threads. But this specific point regarding meat sounds (to me) worst than those other topics and yet you claim that it is veridic and Hindu. So there's no chance this isn't also an adulteration? Is it really the proper translation, the very words of the Ramayana? That's my question.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


But this specific point regarding meat sounds (to me) worst than those other topics and yet you claim that it is veridic and Hindu. So there's no chance this isn't also an adulteration? Is it really the proper translation, the very words of the Ramayana? That's my question.

I am glad you ask this questions its no secret a lot of adulteration particularly to smriti text has taken place , srutis have largely escaped not because it was not tried but it was difficult because of the nature of its arrangements but its translations in English sadly lacks the true sprit the Vedas would convey.

The two brutal regime whose sole aim was to destroy the hindu dharma has stopped at nothing to temper with the text particularly the Brits they made it a point to alter the best way they could. I must add the inter sampradayic rivalry did their best also.


Translations is some thing to desire that brings me to the verse quoted by Sahasranama.

krośamātram tato gatvā bhrātarau rāmalakśmanau || 2-55-33
bahūnmedhyān mṛgān hatvā ceraturyamunāvane |

The translation has an error the word चेरतु means roamed not ate hence it should read roamed in the river forest of Yamuna

I like to consider the main reason why I think the whole meat verses as dubious is because; Ragukul rit chali aiyee pran jaye paan vachan naa jaye. It is Raghukul ethos that they would rather die but would not go back on their words.

Condition of Kaykai was that Ram be exiled in forest for 14 years and live like a ascetic.
This is what he promise his mother that is exactly reiterated to Bharadwaaj muni and here this the classic, Guha offered him food which he refused stating

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).

And next continuation no gaps, after crossing the river they reached a field and suddenly Rama and Laxman are killing Deers, no sign off Sita, Rama and Laxman sits under a tree. This verse is out of place.
We have two choice here to consider, weather these verses pertaining to meat in this Ramayan are true or Ram is not going back on his words and that both Sita and Ram are not lying when they say they would be living in the forest like ascetic substing on fruits and roots.

I know what I choose, I know I was stirred and
with good reason as well because I had to consider those verses, having contemplated considered the scenario presented, a storm in a tea cup really I am calm with my faith restored I pray to Lord Ram to shower his blessing on all of us.

Jai Shree Krishna

[smaranam]

Namaste

I meant to post this yesterday but hesitated:

Classic example of mistranslations in Vedic hymns owing to the nature of SaNskRt language:

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_2/msg00274.html
ukshshNa means either bull or soma plant,
mahishsha means either buffalo or another variety of soma plant.

So, in Rg Ved, there are hymns talking about preparing and consuming soma, and have been erroneously translated as eating bull and buffalo, thus causing a lot of havoc.

From the same page,


As an example there is a subhashita:

keshavaM patitaM dr^shtvA pandavAH harshsha nirbharAH
rudanti kauravAssarve hA keshava hA keshava.

The straight meaning of this sloka would be,
After seeing keshava (krishna) fall down, all the pandavas rejoiced. However, all the kauravas cried in grief, oh keshava, oh keshava.

Does this make sense? After all Krishna is the best friend of the Pandavas. How can they rejoice at Krishna's fall? and How can Kauravas feel sorry for Krishna? It goes against all that we have learnt from Mahabharata and Bhagavadgita.

Yes, there is another more appropriate meaning. "ka" means water, "pandava" means crane, and "kaurava" means crow. and "shava" is a dead body. So, the meaning is:

"After seeing a dead body fall in to water, the cranes rejoiced. However, all the crows cried, alas, the dead body has fallen in to water, dead body in the water"

We do not need a scholar explaining that the Pandavas actually hated Krishna in their heart of hearts and that this was way to express their feelings.

Jai Shri RAm
Jai Shri KRushNa

[smaranam]

Namaste

Several things:

1. Dear Lord Shri RAm, Who came down to earth to live the Truth, show us the Truth, to only bear sorrow, who had to go through VanvAs, also had to see His beloved SitA and little brother Lakshman bear the hardships of VanvAs and more, WHY ? All for the sake of ignorant earthlings.

2. If Shri RAm did indeed accept meat in the wilderness where farming was practically impossible, He was liberating the animal, or elevating it to a higher birth, simultaneously practicing Kshatriya skills of warfare. Imagine a mRga dying at the hands of Shri RAm, svayam NArAyaN - what great saubhAgya. HOWEVER, one theory says those verses are interpolations or mistranslated - which is worth giving thought.

So now what ? In today's world, people living in the most modern urban settings with amenities and plenty of fresh produce (NOT Inuits or AdivAsis), eat meat regularly at home and parties and that is OK?

Go hunting as a means of sport and socializing, and that is OK ?

What to speak of the atrocities of the meat industry and the skewed diet of many humans today (mostly meat).

No karma accrued ?
The tit-for-tat law has not been turned off has it ?

The most important point is, in those times like Treta Yug, animal sacrifice was done for emancipation of the jeevAtmA. No one is qualified to be able to elevate a jeev in Kali Yug.

In addition farming, agriculture, trade, export and communication is making the world a close vegetarian family.

Sustainable agriculture is the way to go for each country, if we want to save ourselves from melting glaciers.

Finally, what is the title of this thread ? How meat eating is tAmasic indeed, and since we are not Divine Beings from Treta Yug, and we are here on HDF for a spiritual purpose, it is not at all conducive for our growth. Why only spiritual, material growth as well.

http://www.geetganga.org/mangal-bhavan-amangal-hari
मंगल भवन अमंगल हारी
द्रवहु सुदसरथ अचर बिहारी
राम सिया राम सिया राम जय जय राम

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram - instrumental (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZQoVfIj2vA)

Jai SiyA RAm ~
Radhe ShyAm ~

sAdar praNAm

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Smaranam ji I thought i will continue this just after celebrating Ram Navmi



Namaste



2. If Shri RAm did indeed accept meat in the wilderness where farming was practically impossible, He was liberating the animal, or elevating it to a higher birth, simultaneously practicing Kshatriya skills of warfare. Imagine a mRga dying at the hands of Shri RAm, svayam NArAyaN - what great saubhAgya. HOWEVER, one theory says those verses are interpolations or mistranslated - which is worth giving thought.

I find this a strange coming from a Bhakta to give such lame excuse of no availability of Vegetarian food in the forest, why would Lord Ram take a vow of subsisting on fruits and nuts are you accepting that he is capable of lying? how did the sages survived in the forest? Are you suggesting that in forest there is no possibility of growing vegetables, how did the sages live? Did they also hunted and ate meat?


The way I see it, we have two choice here,
One accept what Lord Ram is saying before he leaves the kingdom reiterated to Guha and the sages that he would only subsist in the forest with roots and fruits


Two believe few quotes that had been provided that Lord Ram hunted immediately after refusing Guha that he is will only partake in fruit and roots and within a sort period after crossing the river they are supposed to have hunted, leaving mother Sita alone (which does not add up). One off the other quote is already refuted .


Lord Ram is maryada Purushotam he comes in line with Raguvansa, his ancestor king Sibi gave his own flesh to save a dove, also Manu in his law book, forbids consumption off meat why would Lord Ram disregards those instructions. As I said before Raghukul rit chali aiye pran jaiye pan vachan na jaye.

Taking all those in consideration I challenge any one to tell me that Lord Ram ate meat and he is lying.

Those few quotes simply do not belong to Ramayan, I know a bhakta would believe that the Lord is capable to do anything but this aspiring insignificant will never accept that Lord Ram is less compensate then a person off Kaliyuga who would not partake in animal flesh, just not possible.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

राम अनन्त अनन्तगुण अमित कथा विस्तार।
सुनि आश्चर्य न मानि हैं जिनके विमल विचार

rāma ananta anantaguṇa amita kathā vistāra|
suni āścarya na māni haiṁ jinake vimala vicāra

[flabber]

please translate that for clueless souls like me :)

[rajputistan]

Some Vedic text says that living beings eat living beings. I exactly don't know what and nor know if it is correct. My elder brother told me this.

[smaranam]

I find this a strange coming from a Bhakta to give such lame excuse of no availability of Vegetarian food in the forest, why would Lord Ram take a vow of subsisting on fruits and nuts are you accepting that he is capable of lying?

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste GaneshPrasadJi

1. Please accept apologies of this silly insignificant insignificant creature if something wrong has been said or portrayed.

2. Please also note post #48 above, where i have made a basis/background :

Classic example of mistranslations in Vedic hymns owing to the nature of SaNskRt language:

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_2/msg00274.html
ukshshNa means either bull or soma plant,
mahishsha means either buffalo or another variety of soma plant.

So, in Rg Ved, there are hymns talking about preparing and consuming soma, and have been erroneously translated as eating bull and buffalo, thus causing a lot of havoc.

This is to show the evident extremely high probability that those verses have suffered interpolation and mistranslation. Owing to nature of SaNskRt and perhaps ill interests. In addition we have Shri RAm's assertion as you say, that He will live on kanda-muLa in the forrest.

3. After this, i was doing a WHAT-IF ANALYSIS. In a what-if analysis there is only a what-if, i.e. a hypothesis and a corresponding comment or conclusion. That is all there is to point #2 that you have quoted. In which case, it is not my business to mentally speculate, but i made it my business to point out the WHAT-IF and express the SO-WHAT.
** Here, Shri RAm saying that He/They will survive on kanda-muLa-phaLa (roots and fruits) is not being considered. **

So let me put it this way:

We know He didn't, but *Had* Shri RAm accepted deer-meat for whatever transcendental reason (be it kshatriya hunting practice, liberating a soul ...) , He would still remain the same transcendental Shri R A M. The syllables of His name would remain as transcendental, and three aparAdh-free (offense-free) recitals of His Holy name would be equivalent to VishNusahasranAm.

So, in conclusion, there is no excuse today, when vegetarian food is an option within reach. That was the message.

Jai Shri KrushNa

praNAm

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Smaranam ji


Namaste GaneshPrasadJi


We know He didn't, but *Had* Shri RAm accepted deer-meat for whatever transcendental reason (be it kshatriya hunting practice, liberating a soul ...) , He would still remain the same transcendental Shri R A M. The syllables of His name would remain as transcendental, and three aparAdh-free (offense-free) recitals of His Holy name would be equivalent to VishNusahasranAm.

So, in conclusion, there is no excuse today, when vegetarian food is an option within reach. That was the message.

Jai Shri KrushNa

praNAm

I understand your message, but for me, if there is even a hint that he could have engaged in such practice is not acceptable, such hypothesis serve no purpose, for that would be tantamount to admiting that Maryada Purushotam Ram is capable of lying. it is not possible even in sleep.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Some Vedic text says that living beings eat living beings. I exactly don't know what and nor know if it is correct. My elder brother told me this.

Yes you are right, one living entity is the food for another living entity... This is the law of nature. Jivo jivasya jivanam. You cannot starve and live.

Combine this with one of the pillar off Dharma, Karuna compession,Ahimsa Parmo Dharma, then you would get a perfect balance.

what is Satvik, Rajsik and Tamasik food? we have to make conscious choice and it is our choice, meat definitely falls in Tamasik category.


Lord Krishna definitely enjoys us to offer him only
patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.9.26

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

I understand your message, but for me, if there is even a hint that he could have engaged in such practice is not acceptable, such hypothesis serve no purpose, for that would be tantamount to admiting that Maryada Purushotam Ram is capable of lying. it is not possible even in sleep.

Jai Shree KrishnaRama was not lying, he was telling his mother he would abstain from royal fair including luxurious meat and live on food he could find in the forrest.



Lord Krishna definitely enjoys us to offer him only
patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it.9.26
The verse does not say "only" anywhere. It means that even simple offers that are widely available like a flower, a leaf or a piece of fruit or some water will be accepted if offered with devotion, opposite from elaborate rituals like yajnas which require a lot of wealth and skilfull priests to make a sacrifice.


please translate that for clueless souls like me :)

राम अनन्त अनन्तगुण अमित कथा विस्तार।
सुनि आश्चर्य न मानि हैं जिनके विमल विचार

rāma ananta anantaguṇa amita kathā vistāra|
suni āścarya na māni haiṁ jinake vimala vicāra

"Rama is infinite, has infinite qualities and his pastimes are endless. Those who are sound of mind will not be surprised hearing this."

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam




Rama was not lying, he was telling his mother he would abstain from royal fair including luxurious meat and live on food he could find in the forrest.

I never said he was lying, what he was saying to his mother is debatable which i leave that for another day, but i will concentrate on the integrity of Lord Ram,and what he said to Guha and sage Bharadwaaja and i quote

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)

he would be lying having said above and then go on to do the opposite and partake in eating meat in the forest.

those verses you provided make no sense either you believe them to be true, which i don't, or you accept what he is saying to Guha and Bharadwaj muni.

Either you accept what Ram is saying to Guha and the sage, or he ate meat, both can't be true. let us see if you can give me a straight answer, yes or no.





The verse does not say "only" anywhere. It means that even simple offers that are widely available like a flower, a leaf or a piece of fruit or some water will be accepted if offered with devotion, opposite from elaborate rituals like yajnas which require a lot of wealth and skilfull priests to make a sacrifice.
sure 'only' does not appear in the verse, but these are the only thing that he has mentioned in the verse to be offered to him.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

There is no contradiction if you remove the words you have put in parentices and only look at the literal meaning.

[Ganeshprasad]

There is no contradiction if you remove the words you have put in parentices and only look at the literal meaning.

parentices, no such word in my dictionary, by that you mean word put in the brackets i hope.

such conclusion are drawn from certain known facts, even if you remove those words the meaning does not change, fact is he refused food other than Kand and mula from Guha and the sage, says it all, it is your choice to remain blind to it.

For instance if were to say to a Hindu i am doing Neer jala Ekadasi anyone in know would know that it is a fast without anything else. the literal meaning as you insist would mean i am fasting from water only.

Lord Ram is well versed in Vedas, post no 3 on this thread clearly is against killing and eating meat, so you brought in verses from Ramayan to bring balance as if Ahimsa need balance, mind boggles, those verses do not belong in Ramayan for the reason given, you can't even acknowledge the fact that there is onerous translation pointed out to you.

Jai Shree Krishna

[charitra]

Namste Ganesh,
if you only had known about Kshatriyas half as well as I do (nothing wrong with them, they are all good souls), im sure you will reset the button on the whole issue of food debate. ;)

[Sahasranama]

parentices, no such word in my dictionary, by that you mean word put in the brackets i hope.

such conclusion are drawn from certain known facts, even if you remove those words the meaning does not change, fact is he refused food other than Kand and mula from Guha and the sage, says it all, it is your choice to remain blind to it.

For instance if were to say to a Hindu i am doing Neer jala Ekadasi anyone in know would know that it is a fast without anything else. the literal meaning as you insist would mean i am fasting from water only.

Lord Ram is well versed in Vedas, post no 3 on this thread clearly is against killing and eating meat, so you brought in verses from Ramayan to bring balance as if Ahimsa need balance, mind boggles, those verses do not belong in Ramayan for the reason given, you can't even acknowledge the fact that there is onerous translation pointed out to you.

Jai Shree Krishna

I spelled it wrong, I meant parentheses.

Before I respond again, I would like to ask some clarifications about what you mean here:

"you can't even acknowledge the fact that there is onerous translation pointed out to you."

[Ganeshprasad]

I spelled it wrong, I meant parentheses.

Before I respond again, I would like to ask some clarifications about what you mean here:

"you can't even acknowledge the fact that there is onerous translation pointed out to you."

check post no 47

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Charitra


Namste Ganesh,
if you only had known about Kshatriyas half as well as I do (nothing wrong with them, they are all good souls), im sure you will reset the button on the whole issue of food debate. ;)

Oh please give me some credit i have been around long enough to know the Kshatriyas position, this thread has now turned in to Debate on Lord Ram's character, weather he ate meat or he lied, Lord Vishnu (Ram) Sudh Satva, meat is Tamsik not possible even in a dream for him to eat meat. Even Sabri knew what to offer him, i just give up on those who think otherwise.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

Translations is some thing to desire that brings me to the verse quoted by Sahasranama.

krośamātram tato gatvā bhrātarau rāmalakśmanau || 2-55-33
bahūnmedhyān mṛgān hatvā ceraturyamunāvane |
The translation has an error the word चेरतु means roamed not ate hence it should read roamed in the river forest of Yamuna


I have used credible sources to double check this translation, the Sanskrit commentaries which I will quote. The Bhushana of Govindaraja mentions चेरतु: भक्षितवन्तौ, the tilaka by Ramavarma mentions चेरतुर्भुक्तवन्तौ, the Amrita kathika by Madhava Yogin mentions चेरतुः-चरगतिभक्षणयोः, the tattvadipa by Maheshvara Tirtha mentions चेरतुः भक्षितवन्तौ. I am no Sanskrit scholar, but I think it is pretty clear that all these classical commentators agreed that Cheratu means "they ate" in some way or another. I would like to know what you base the translation "roamed" on.
The translation of a single word is not that significant in this discussion. You have no objection to the word hatva, having killed, but you only object to the fact that they ate the meat they had already killed? No matter how you translate cheratu, the word hatva is still there. Even if there's some controversy around the translation of cheratu, this is just one of the many verses that speak of meat eating (or at least you will have to admit hunting in this verse), I have quoted others as well.
The word Medhyaan means "pure, fit for sacrifice," there would be no reason to hunt pure animals if it wasn't for consumption.This excludes that the hunting was done for sports or self-protection.

[smaranam]

Namaste GaneshprasadJi

It is very good that you are refuting, and pointing out the flaws in Ramayan verse interpretations and may the Lord bless you for seeking truth.

However, "Lord Ram being shuddha sattva - hence He cannot do anything that appears tamasic to us jivas" - that should not be our proof point. Why ?

Because He is NArAyaN svayam, and untouched by guNa and mAyA. Our logic should not be imposed on Him.

** PLEASE NOTE: I am not making ANY statement about RamayaN here.


Lord BrahmA used logic seeing 5 yr old KrushNa mix all gopa boys' lunch boxes and eating that :
"How can KrushNa eat from the same plate as the other cowherd boys ?! Shri KrushNa is Yadnya and accepts only food offered as Yadnya - not already shared food. Has the Lord come under MAyA ? Let me test"

Then BrahmA stole all calves and cowherd boys to see Lord's reaction.

BhagvAn being Supersoul watched, and taught BrahmA a lesson by immediately expanding into as many cowherds and calves, showing His chaturbhuj (four armed) NArAyaN/VishNu forms to BrahmA.

As a result of KrushNa's compassion, the Gopa-Gopis and their cows were blessed with overflowing vAtsalya. Without their knowledge, whom they mistook as their own sons and calves, were all actually svaMsha expansions Shri KrushNa - they were puzzled by the extraordinary love they felt towards their own children all of a sudden - and for a whole year (time it takes BrahmA to blink = one earth year).

As a result, we Kali Yugis are blessed with Lord BrahmA's beautiful prayers of apology and surrender (for wrongly thinking for a second whether KrushNa has come under mAyA).

Shrimad BhAgvatam Canto 10.13 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/13/en), - BrahmA stealing gopas and calves ;
Shrimad BhAgvatam Canto 10.14 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/14/en) - Prayers by Lord BrahmA.

Jai Shri KrushNa

praNAm

[smaranam]

SB 10.13.3: O King, kindly hear me with great attention. Although the activities of the Supreme Lord are very confidential, no ordinary man being able to understand them, I shall speak about them to you, for spiritual masters explain to a submissive disciple even subject matters that are very confidential and difficult to understand.

SB 10.13.11: Kṛṣṇa is yajña-bhuk — that is, He eats only offerings of yajña — but to exhibit His childhood pastimes, He now sat with His flute tucked between His waist and His tight cloth on His right side and with His horn bugle and cow-driving stick on His left. Holding in His hand a very nice preparation of yogurt and rice, with pieces of suitable fruit between His fingers, He sat like the whorl of a lotus flower, looking forward toward all His friends, personally joking with them and creating jubilant laughter among them as He ate. At that time, the denizens of heaven were watching, struck with wonder at how the Personality of Godhead, who eats only in yajña, was now eating with His friends in the forest.

SB 10.13.12: O Mahārāja Parīkṣit, while the cowherd boys, who knew nothing within the core of their hearts but Kṛṣṇa, were thus engaged in eating their lunch in the forest, the calves went far away, deep into the forest, being allured by green grass.

SB 10.13.13: When Kṛṣṇa saw that His friends the cowherd boys were frightened, He, the fierce controller even of fear itself, said, just to mitigate their fear, "My dear friends, do not stop eating. I shall bring your calves back to this spot by personally going after them Myself."

SB 10.13.14: "Let Me go and search for the calves," Kṛṣṇa said. "Don't disturb your enjoyment." Then, carrying His yogurt and rice in His hand, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, immediately went out to search for the calves of His friends. To please His friends, He began searching in all the mountains, mountain caves, bushes and narrow passages.

SB 10.13.15: O Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Brahmā, who resides in the higher planetary system in the sky, had observed the activities of the most powerful Kṛṣṇa in killing and delivering Aghāsura, and he was astonished. Now that same Brahmā wanted to show some of his own power and see the power of Kṛṣṇa, who was engaged in His childhood pastimes, playing as if with ordinary cowherd boys. Therefore, in Kṛṣṇa's absence, Brahmā took all the boys and calves to another place. Thus he became entangled, for in the very near future he would see how powerful Kṛṣṇa was.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam
Word चेरतु comes from the word char to move, my own Ramayan in Gujarati from Sastu Shitya also translate as roaming, you only have to google the word and you will find it is translated as roaming.
I will again with the best off my ability present why verse given is not only mistranslated but the word hatva is interpolated.

When lord Ram inquired about the best place to reside sage Bharadwaja suggested Chitrakut.
raatryaam tu tasyaam vyuSTaayaam bharadvaajo abraviid idam |
madhu muula phala upetam citra kuuTam vraja iti ha || 2-54-38

That night having come to an end, Bharadwaja replied for his part, as follows: “Proced to Chitrakuta, rich in honey, tubers and fruits.”

They proceeded (about 60 miles)as instructed, bidding good byes to the sage.
Note the emphasis on roots and fruit. It is obvious that is the food they will eat.
As they proceed I quote in English prose for ease of reading.

Oh, Lakshmana, the excellent of men! You take Seetha and proceed in the front. I, along with weapons, will follow you behind.” “Give to Seetha whatever fruit or flower she desires it and wherever this Seetha’s mind finds delight.” Seetha who was walking in the middle of both of them was like an auspicious female elephant in the middle of two elephants. That Seetha asked Rama whenever she saw the one or the other tree or a bush or a creeper shining with flowers which was not seen earlier. Duly grasping Seetha’s words; Lakshmana brought to her many kinds of beautiful twigs of trees, full of flowers. Then Seetha the daughter of King Janaka was please to see the River Yamuna with wonderful sands and waters re-echoing to the cry of swans and cranes. Thereafter having travelled only a couple of miles the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many consecrated deer and ate in the river-forest of Yamuna. Having strolled in the charming forest, mad noisy by a number of peacocks and which was inhabited by elephants and monkeys and reaching an agreeable level ground at the bank of the river wearing an undejected look finally sought for an abode for the night. Unquote.

Please note They are walking by the River Yamuna admiring the natural beauty. Laxman bringing fruit and flowers as desired by Mother Sita. the whole sequence is now disturbed by alleged killing, take that word killing out then we get an idea how they proceed or roamed ( चेरतु)the forest barely two miles after they come across many dears and as they continue the next verse they see peacocks elephant monkeys.

If it is killing we have to believe that Lord Ram not only going back on his words, we have to believe चेरतु means eating, I have found no dictionary that says so. Not only that we have to believe that Lord Ram not only kills to eat but he kills many for the sake off it. One would be enough to feed a big family why kill many?

It is absurd to think he kills to eat even more absurd to think he kills for fun.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Snaranam ji


Namaste GaneshprasadJi

It is very good that you are refuting, and pointing out the flaws in Ramayan verse interpretations and may the Lord bless you for seeking truth.Thanks for your kind words, it is no secret the Asuric forces have tempered with our Shastras.

"Lord Ram being shuddha sattva - hence He cannot do anything that appears tamasic to us jivas" - that should not be our proof point. Why ?

Because He is NArAyaN svayam, and untouched by guNa and mAyA. Our logic should not be imposed on Him.

You are right about that, especially in the case of Nanda Kishore makhan chor, his lila is beyond logic but when it comes to Maryada Purshotam Ram there is a small difference, he came to set perfect example for humans to follow, he even gave up his pregnant wife mother Sita because a dhobi made false accusation.

These verses of meat that are in the Ramayan are works of Asura for sure because i can not believe for one moment that he would go back on his words, if he says he will subsist on Kanda, mula then that is good enough for me, to believe otherwise is sacrilege.

i hope i made my point across it is up to people to believe what they want, looking at the support or lack there off , on the subject has been disheartening to say the least, looks like there are not many Ram Bhakta on the forum, to say that would be wrong because that would make me one and i am far from it.

I would like to point out that i do not hinge my spiritual progress on being vegetarian, it helps but Dharma is much beyond that, being Satvik is important but we have to transcend all the gunas.

Jai Shree Krishna Jai Shree Ram

[Water]

Wow! I read through the majority of this trying to find some explanation to the possible contradiction in the translation of Ramyana....



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
[...]



There is no contradiction if you remove the words you have put in parentices and only look at the literal meaning.


parentices, no such word in my dictionary, by that you mean word put in the brackets i hope.

To contribute my own understanding on the topic of the contradictions of the Ramayana, let me start by saying....

I have bolded the parentheses above.

Parentice is a proper surname. Parentices is plural of Parentice. You can add that to your dictionary immediately. Clearly, since I know without an absolute doubt what someone else intended to communicate, that individual meant that you should listen to a family of individuals named Parentice on their interpretation for better understanding. Duh?

The bolded characters are absolutely not brackets. Therefore, someone isn't actually reviewing or knowing what they type because, clearly, brackets are not parentheses. Unless you are from the U.K. where the word "brackets" is ambiguously used for both square-brackets "[" and curved-brackets "(" but that would then make you a liar because your profile doesn't say U.K. therefore voiding all other contributions to the conversation as you ultimately choose to maliciously deceive before you have even committed characters to the post.

Pretty inflammatory, eh? See how much fun we can have when we semantically over-analyze language with aggression, sarcasm and disrespect for no gain? :(

You can interpret "roots and fruits" as a jovial enthusiasm for the acceptance of the task to live in the forest rather than a literal description of what will be eaten.

You can interpret "roots and fruits" as a truthful contrast to the luxury currently experienced rather than a literal description of what will be eaten.

In either instance, there is no deception.

Why did Lord Ram chase Vibhishana into the forest in the form of a deer? Does the act of chasing the deer automatically imply murderous intent? Why did Lord Ram attack the crow? Was it out of rage?

I don't justify these questions (even if they're my own) with any answers. I cannot believe that my own understanding could create any reasonable answer. I simply do not know. And I'm quite happy with that.

Exploration of those questions in academia is, of course, quite interesting when it doesn't involve trying to offend or defend that which cannot be offended and which does not need to be defended.

[Sahasranama]

Even the most cruel rakshasas get mukti after Shri Rama kills them, then what about a deer that feeds his stomach. When Bharata visited Rama in the forest, he took away his charana padukas (slippers) to place on the throne and Sri Rama had to walk in the forest on his bare feet. Would it not be a privilege for us to be an ant trampled under his lotus feet.

[Ganeshprasad]

e.


Pretty inflammatory, eh? See how much fun we can have when we semantically over-analyze language with aggression, sarcasm and disrespect for no gain? :(

It sure is, were do you get off trying to tell me what I immediately should do?

Your diatribe require no response from me I suggest you get your facts right before calling me liar and while we are on the subject of facts may be you like to clarify from Sahasranama what he meant by Parentice instead of your speculations.

Also you may want to meditate on the word Vow cause that is what Lord Ram Tells Guha and Bharadwaaj muni, before you want to bring your own interpretations and remain blind to contradictions, that is your choice.
And one more thing you could consider before entering a debate, to state the facts so as not to confuse the audience, where and when did Lord Ram chase Vibhishana into the forest in the form of a deer?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Even the most cruel rakshasas get mukti after Shri Rama kills them, then what about a deer that feeds his stomach. When Bharata visited Rama in the forest, he took away his charana padukas (slippers) to place on the throne and Sri Rama had to walk in the forest on his bare feet. Would it not be a privilege for us to be an ant trampled under his lotus feet.


Great logic accept it does not help establishing weather he would go back on his words or चेरतु means to eat or he kills many deer’s for fun.

On the subject of Bharat taking his Padukas, Ram trampling over the ants with padukas the result would be the same but important point to notice when Bharat returned to Ayodhya his resolve was even greater then Lord Ram, he stayed in Nandigrama village living like a hermit in a hole dug in the earth sleeping on Kush grass.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Water]

It sure is, were do you get off trying to tell me what I immediately should do?

It is quite clear you're reacting to the language rather than any actual meaning. Had you considered, even for a brief moment, that the entirety of the first two whole paragraphs was nothing but nonsense. Additionally, there was even a paragraph explaining how the first two paragraphs were there only to be inflammatory and reflective on how you were reacting to your own personal interpretation of words.


Your diatribe require no response from me I suggest you get your facts right before calling me liar and while we are on the subject of facts may be you like to clarify from Sahasranama what he meant by Parentice instead of your speculations.

It is quite clear you're reacting to the language rather than any actual meaning. Do I need to reiterate the entire point a third time? All "speculations" were satirical.

You also forgot the "s" on "requires" and there are additional spaces prefixing that word, as well. You are missing quite a few commas and again the double-space appears before "your."

Sahasranama already clarified what he meant.


And one more thing you could consider before entering a debate, to state the facts so as not to confuse the audience

A debate? A debate is an exchange of ideas. Often non-aggressive. It is a respectful exchange of understandings.

This is not a debate at all.


where and when did Lord Ram chase Vibhishana into the forest in the form of a deer?

That was a mistake. It should have read Maricha. Thanks for pointing that out!


Great logic accept it does not help establishing weather he would go back on his words or चेरतु means to eat or he kills many deer’s for fun.

Yay! More interpretive fun!

What is that logic accepting? You do know that accept means "to receive." You probably meant to say "except," but let's get semantic and disrespectful! Forget the fact that it's almost a homonym and could probably be mistaken for the correct word in speech. It's nearly phonetically correct. Let's not give the consideration to the author of the post to accept (or except?) the word as what was intended rather than what was typed.

Should I speculate on my interpretation of what you actually intended to write, or should I speculate on exactly what was written? Either way, as it stands, there is no intelligent meaning to the quoted text above without speculation and personal interpretation.

Should I assume you overtly, lovingly passionate about the topic? Or should I assume you're overly aggressive and typing with little regard in a competitive assault of verbatim? Maybe it was an innocent mistake? Perhaps you are very mildly functionally illiterate? Is English a second language? Were you interrupted in translating your thoughts to mechanical actions by some other force? Maybe you have 3 children and a wife that are keeping you busy while you try to adamantly refute a personal belief?

Now, before you get a bit angry about me calling you illiterate, please note that I did not call you illiterate. I would not want to offend you at all. That word is only one word of many words in the entire post - all of which you should you read to gain a better context of the rest of the words in the post. I only want to make an objective point about personal inferences and their variances even in contradiction to "facts."

Aggression and disrespect are not components of a debate - it's an argument. :)

I will meditate on the word 'shanti.'

[smaranam]

Please note They are walking by the River Yamuna admiring the natural beauty. Laxman bringing fruit and flowers as desired by Mother Sita. the whole sequence is now disturbed by alleged killing, take that word killing out then we get an idea how they proceed or roamed ( चेरतु)the forest barely two miles after they come across many dears and as they continue the next verse they see peacocks elephant monkeys.
....
...
Not only that we have to believe that Lord Ram not only kills to eat but he kills many for the sake off it. One would be enough to feed a big family why kill many?

Jai Shree Krishna

praNAm

This makes sense all the way. Cheratu - chara meaning roamed, and could also mean "grazed" - possibly the deer were roaming and eating grass, not Ram Lakshman Sita. ( char - saNskrit = roam/wander/walk , charNe (- infinitive) = to graze in marathi i.e. eat grass while roaming)

I was also surprised to read about killing "many deer" - does not make sense at all.

SaNskRt dictionary: http://www.dictionary.tamilcube.com/sanskrit-dictionary.aspx

TO ROAM: aTati, viHri, bhramati, charati
TO EAT: khAdati, bhunaktu, bhakshyati, vRiN , ashnAsi
TO WALK: chalh, chalati, vrajeta ; Related: charati = to walk,roam, practice.

(i have ignored the verb tense/form here)

** Also, bhaikshaM-charati = to go about begging (bhikshA).

Jai Shri KrushNa

[smaranam]

Further,

cheru = behaving respectfully, worshipping
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=ceru&script=&direction=SE&link=y

cheratu - find list:
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=1+&tinput=ceratu&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

[smaranam]

TO EAT: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=eat&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=ES

One word in this list is "charvati" - with a 'Va' in it, accurate meaning = chew (chewing the cud ?)

Jai Shri KrushNa

[Ganeshprasad]

It is quite clear you're reacting to the language rather than any actual meaning. Had you considered, even for a brief moment, that the entirety of the first two whole paragraphs was nothing but nonsense. Additionally, there was even a paragraph explaining how the first two paragraphs were there only to be inflammatory and reflective on how you were reacting to your own personal interpretation of words.

i am afraid i do not engage in silly conversation or satirical speculations, so excuse me for not understanding all that nonsense.





You also forgot the "s" on "requires" and there are additional spaces prefixing that word, as well. You are missing quite a few commas and again the double-space appears before "your."thanks for pointing out my short comings, i would freely admit that grammar never was my strong point.



A debate? A debate is an exchange of ideas. Often non-aggressive. It is a respectful exchange of understandings.

This is not a debate at all.I am profoundly sorry if i gave you that impression, perhaps you would like to point out my aggression i would try my best to make amends.



Yay! More interpretive fun!

What is that logic accepting? You do know that accept means "to receive." You probably meant to say "except," but let's get semantic and disrespectful! Forget the fact that it's almost a homonym and could probably be mistaken for the correct word in speech. It's nearly phonetically correct. Let's not give the consideration to the author of the post to accept (or except?) the word as what was intended rather than what was typed.i am glad you are having fun at my expense and you are right, it is obvious what i meant to convey, thanks for pointing it out.




Should I assume you overtly, lovingly passionate about the topic? Or should I assume you're overly aggressive and typing with little regard in a competitive assault of verbatim? Maybe it was an innocent mistake?you may assume what you like, this thread is not about my language short coming.



Perhaps you are very mildly functionally illiterate? Is English a second language? Were you interrupted in translating your thoughts to mechanical actions by some other force? Maybe you have 3 children and a wife that are keeping you busy while you try to adamantly refute a personal belief?Now you are being personal and insulting, where do you get off?



Now, before you get a bit angry about me calling you illiterate, please note that I did not call you illiterate. I would not want to offend you at all. That word is only one word of many words in the entire post - all of which you should you read to gain a better context of the rest of the words in the post. I only want to make an objective point about personal inferences and their variances even in contradiction to "facts."try making some objective points regard this thread instead trying my patience, may be you take your own advise what you offer below.



Aggression and disrespect are not components of a debate - it's an argument. :)

I will meditate on the word 'shanti.'You do that and while you are at it meditate on the subject, its implications and above all the Vow that Lord Ram took.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Water]

Now you are being personal and insulting, where do you get off?

That's the interesting thing. I'm *not* being outwardly personal or insulting. I am publicly conveying my interpretation of clearly factual information. Your interpretation is without doubt different than my own. And in that, out of respect, we will allow those different interpretations to exist. You cannot deem one "wrong" and one "right." There is no wrong or right interpretation - to insist there is... is disrespectful, insulting and aggressive. We can, however, explore both points without inciting insults.

I arrived at this thread to learn - especially when the topic involved Lord Ram. The topic was interesting until it became more about the subterfuge of the message than the actual messages.

To extrapolate more, let's analyse the presentation and reaction of recent posts. Discrediting a post with "Not in my dictionary" for a nearly correct and almost phonetical misspelling of a word is insulting. I intentionally wrote that Vibhishana was the deer - you quickly pointed that out to discredit me. Not only did you not correct the misinformation, but you leveraged it as an insult*. When I corrected the information to read that Maricha was the deer the question was still ignored*. However, you have spent significant time preparing retorts to any information you find offensive or different to your own presentation up to an including leveraging the events of the Ramayana to fulfill your own competitive success*. You have even gone as far as classifying the entire board as having "very few Rama bhakti."*

And ultimately, you have let me completely detract you from the topic at hand with completely unrelated information.* Actually, isn't this thread about vegetarianism as a whole?

*Not a sign of debate. It's an argument.

You are clearly versed beyond comparison to myself on many, many topics. However, I would really, really, really, really appreciate the continuation of an exchange of ideas on the topic without anyone being judged a sacrilegious asura. :)

At this point, there can be no clearer explanation.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Water ji
finally in the language i can relate and understand, i am sorry we started on the wrong footings, perhaps we can start a new, with a clean slate. i shell respond to your post later in a new post


That's the interesting thing. I'm *not* being outwardly personal or insulting. I am publicly conveying my interpretation of clearly factual information.

From where i stood your posts came across very condescending.

if you call the below factual i don't know what speculation is.


Were you interrupted in translating your thoughts to mechanical actions by some other force? Maybe you have 3 children and a wife that are keeping you busy while you try to adamantly refute a personal belief? Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam




Your interpretation is without doubt different than my own. And in that, out of respect, we will allow those different interpretations to exist. You cannot deem one "wrong" and one "right." There is no wrong or right interpretation - to insist there is... is disrespectful, insulting and aggressive. We can, however, explore both points without inciting insults.

We sure can agree to disagree , that should never be a problem, let the points flow from all direction, the truth triumphs in the end, Satyameva Vijayate.there is a strong tradition of Vaad-Vivaad and Shastraarth in Hindu belief system but I should add that there are few important presumptions implicit in this tradition 1) there is agreement on the basic “dharma” and 2) there is willingness to concede a point as the intention is not to “win” but to know the truth.

Let me start where I am coming from, perhaps that will give you an idea where my position stems from.
a)Lord Ram is Maryada purushotam, his avatar sets a perfect example for us human to follow.he is a perfect son, perfect brother, perfect friend a perfect husband and a perfect King, that is the popular belief for the Hindus.
b)He comes in line off king Sibi who gave up his own flesh to save a dove, in the same lineage off law giver Manu, he gives passages where meat is not conducive for us humans. in the same lineage the famous saying Pran jaye paan vachanana jaye roughly translated give up life but never go back on the promise.

c)It’s no secret, hostile forces, who subjugated us for over a thousand years, whose sole aim was to convert us kaffirs and heathens. Found the shatras unbelievably potent and far beyond their comprehension. Scholars were sent to malign and deliberately distort the meaning, interpolation smrity Shastra has been rampant there is even a alha upanisad if you get my drift. All the manuscripts were in their hands to do what they like, what changes they suffered we can only guess.



I arrived at this thread to learn - especially when the topic involved Lord Ram. The topic was interesting until it became more about the subterfuge of the message than the actual messages.There never was an attempt to deceive or hide any messages but to point the contradictions and in light off the ‘vow’ and the linage tradition, to uphold that promise, it becomes increasing obvious to me that any thing contrary to that promise would make Lord Ram going against established norm. I have no illusion in light off the evidence out there that those verses are interpolated by asuric forces hostile to hindu dharma.



To extrapolate more, let's analyse the presentation and reaction of recent posts. Discrediting a post with "Not in my dictionary" for a nearly correct and almost phonetical misspelling of a word is insulting. I am at pains to understand why you are taking exception to that, when Sahasranama did not object. There was no discrediting the post, I clarified his use of the word which was not in my vocabulary, I had no intention to insult, that begs a question what were you doing pointing out my error and then you went on to question my literacy, yet you maintain in the same paragraph(large) you really don’t mean that . Was that not insulting?





I intentionally wrote that Vibhishana was the deer - you quickly pointed that out to discredit me. Not only did you not correct the misinformation, but you leveraged it as an insult*.In your reply to my post you said it was a mistake now you are saying it was intentionally written. Yes I did not correct that mistake because I found your first post very condescending, in our first ever encounter you chose to insult me, well that is how I perceived it.



When I corrected the information to read that Maricha was the deer the question was still ignored*. I did not realize you pose that as a question, beside we both agree he did not go to kill the deer but he had to kill Marich nor was he wrathful with Jayant the crow.



However, you have spent significant time preparing retorts to any information you find offensive or different to your own presentation up to an including leveraging the events of the Ramayana to fulfill your own competitive success*. Why would you think I am here for some trophy, what possible gain would I have from that ?



You have even gone as far as classifying the entire board as having "very few Rama bhakti."*Na, I was only lamenting lack off any support, especially from vaishnava, the few that are here. The most off the board here are advaita followers.



And ultimately, you have let me completely detract you from the topic at hand with completely unrelated information.* Actually, isn't this thread about vegetarianism as a whole?Yes that is true, it is not strictly vegetarianism, the title is, if meat is tamsik and not conducive to physical or spiritual growth, sha in his wisdom brought Lord Ram in to the equation, so question remains weather he thinks Meat is tamsik or not?



without anyone being judged a sacrilegious asura.Let me make clear this Asura was directed only at forces that subjugated us for thousands of years.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Water]

I thank you for answering the question to the best of your ability. May you find conviction and confidence in your own knowledge.

Sita devi was filled with want for the deer when she asked Sri Ram to capture it. There is no interpretation that the intent was to injure it - though clearly an intent to possess it.

Here is an excerpt from a popular translation of the story of the crow,

"O great armed Rama, the excellent among the wise! With your eyes rolling with anger, you then harboured a cruel intention against that crow. [...]

To clarify, I do not add this information as a question or a threat to the understanding you have provided. They are only for reference. I do not wish for feedback regarding either topic.

Feel free to continue your argument! I'm outta here! :)

[Ganeshprasad]

May you find conviction and confidence in your own knowledge.


Feel free to continue your argument! I'm outta here! :)

It's a shame that you feel the need to retreat in a manner which assumes the moral high ground. What have you offered so far, a few references but no opinion, but plenty insults. You know what a smacked in the face? your last line with the smiley.

You have been arrogant from the onset accused me with lying, you had no shame in admitting to have started your posts with nonsense in order to inflame, and you end your post, granting your permission, for me to continue my argument, what pompous arrogant statement!

You have contributed nothing but deflected the on going discussion.

I don’t think you realise the severity or implication of Lord Ram keeping his Vow or breaking it, I shell continue to defend that position of his, if you call that an argument so be it.

I agree Sita Mata desire to acquire the deer and not to injure it, I never said anything to contrary, but Laxman Sure did know, who that deer was and Lord Ram was made aware of it. the whole new chapter was about to be unfold, one off the reason for Shree Ram to come down to earth was to get rid off the Raksas.

Marich story began a long time ago, Lord Ram along with Laxman went with Vishvamitra to guard his Yagna, Subahu was killed but Maricha was spared for deer chapter. This just for your reference

Jai Shree Krishna

[Water]

Would you like me to stay? I think we may be twisting this thread beyond repair, but on your request I will continue if you'd like.

I did not intend to insult you to the extent that you imply. I will repeat again that those statements were not statements at all - they were rhetoric on the ways that language can be interpreted.

If you intend to teach... regardless of the correctness of an understanding - that understanding should be respected. If you intend to lecture and chastise... disregard understandings, insult, commit to what you feel personal attachment to, be fanatical, etc.

A person's personal reaction and defense (or lack of) on segments of communication rather than the whole is very telling of their committed knowledge and belief.

I was arrogant in my persistence of a logical conclusion. In response, I received retorts not to the material at hand but to your own personal ego. Blind insults to the entire board, myself and users who incorrectly phonetically typed a word were issued by yourself without cause or justification with the utmost arrogance. When presented with the same scenario, you held to the insults with your heart and responded in kind. Even outside of this thread, you have continued the aggression and attachment to material by repeating "for your reference" to me. To what end does this bring us?

Put simply, in an argument, be aggressive to the aggressor and you will certainly find their true intent - to propel knowledge, or to satisfy their personal confirmation (ie: to win).

[Ganeshprasad]

It would not bother me if you stayed or not.
i am not going to dignify myself against your innuendos.
so be my guest contribute something positive if you like, meantime i will continue in my own way to uphold the Honor of Lord Ram, call that fanatic if you like, i would not care

Jai Shree Krishna

[Water]

It would not bother me if you stayed or not.
i am not going to dignify myself against your innuendos.
so be my guest contribute something positive if you like, meantime i will continue in my own way to uphold the Honor of Lord Ram, call that fanatic if you like, i would not care

Jai Shree Krishna

You do not need to dignify yourself, my friend.

Your conviction and devotion is absolutely inspiring.

[Harinama]

All I can say is, that in Kali-yuga, meat-eating is one of the symptoms of this era, and so as long as meat-eating exists, it will be as a microcosm of Kali-yuga itself.

Cuz, you know, Srimad-Bhagavatam says so... :rolleyes:

If one wants to eat meat, it would be better to worship Kali or Durga and offer that meat to Her. But if one wants to follow Shaivism or Vaishnavism, and lead a sattvic life, then vegetarianism is the way to go.

And it would be better to eat meat and be part of another religion, of course. :)

[TheOne]

Saying Meat is Tamsik is rather crass, in my opinion. Let's examine this statement and I will attempt to clarify it.


The ending of life(at an appropriate level) is natures natural way of making room for more life, thus it is said by some "the purpose of life...is to end" because without the competition(at an appropriate level) life would cease to be.

Does someone blame the tiger for eating the zebra? Or the shark for eating the dolphin? No, because that is its nature or Dharma if you will. The Tiger holds no animosity towards the zebra and the Zebra holds no animosity towards the tiger. It's by the ending of life and the changing of energy from one form to another that this "whole game" of the universe works.


Now we come to humans. We have "eaten the fruit" and have the knowledge of good and evil. The fact that someone ends a life, and eats the animal in my opinion is perfectly fine. It's only when the false ego attaches to killing(or eating) another form of life is when you have to put meat eating into good and evil.



Added Video for clarification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df4J8zI_ZME&feature=related

That's why I am continually amazed by the Aghori's, you go beyond the social norms and enter the realm of Divine Nature by ending their duality of good and evil and their attachments to the results of their actions.


Before I get strongly criticized I would like to clarify that yes, I am a Vegetarian and if you ask why? I can answer with the typical talking points and refute nearly any meat eater. But I would like to add, being a vegetarian is only useful if you haven't proverbially, seen through the illusion of the ego.

[proudhindu]

Saying Meat is Tamsik is rather crass, in my opinion. Let's examine this statement and I will attempt to clarify it.

Sure.



The ending of life(at an appropriate level) is natures natural way of making room for more life, thus it is said by some "the purpose of life...is to end" because without the competition(at an appropriate level) life would cease to be.

The balance provided By nature is an entirely different thing.Some Species Are Built to Be exclusive carnivores.


Does someone blame the tiger for eating the zebra? Or the shark for eating the dolphin? No, because that is its nature or Dharma if you will.

That is Nature, Yes.The Tiger was built to Eat Meat exclusively.



Now we come to humans. We have "eaten the fruit" and have the knowledge of good and evil.

Is That the biblical Fruit or the Quranic fruit?.



The fact that someone ends a life, and eats the animal in my opinion is perfectly fine.

I can Understand because you are the One who is doing the eating :p and not the otherway Round.


It's only when the false ego attaches to killing(or eating) another form of life is when you have to put meat eating into good and evil.

False Ego?.Are you saying Since you like meat too much it is Fine to Kill an animal for food eventhough You are Built to Consume Foods That have less impact On environment?.

The Main difference Between Carnivores(The Tiger for example) and Humans is we can Live consuming Grains and Pulses while the Carnivores cannot survive with out Eating Meat.So, Any comparison to meat eating With Tigers is Absurd.




Added Video for clarification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df4J8zI_ZME&feature=related

Who is talking in that Video?.

Some Authoratative articles providing Links to research from Scientific community regarding Environmental Impact of Meat Consumption.

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html




Before I get strongly criticized I would like to clarify that yes, I am a Vegetarian and if you ask why? I can answer with the typical talking points and refute nearly any meat eater. But I would like to add, being a vegetarian is only useful if you haven't proverbially, seen through the illusion of the ego.

I find It hard to believe that you have not shed your Ego and start Eating meat.

[Harinama]

"Suta Gosvami said: Maharaja Parikshit, thus being petitioned by the personality of Kali, gave him permission to reside in places where gambling, drinking, prostitution and animal slaughter were performed.

Thus the personality of Kali, by the directions of Maharaja Parikshit, the son of Uttara, was allowed to live in those five places.

Therefore, whoever desires progressive well-being, especially kings, religionists, public leaders, brahmanas and sannyasis, should never come in contact with the four above-mentioned irreligious principles."

-- Srimad-bhagavatam 1.17.38,40-41

[Harinama]

"For the maintenance of their bodies and the satisfaction of their tongues, cruel persons cook poor animals and birds alive. Such persons are condemned even by man-eaters. In their next lives they are carried by the Yamadutas to the hell known as Kumbhipaka, where they are cooked in boiling oil.

By the arrangement of the Supreme Lord, low-grade living beings like bugs and mosquitoes suck the blood of human beings and other animals. Such insignificant creatures are unaware that their bites are painful to the human being. However, first-class human beings — brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas — are developed in consciousness, and therefore they know how painful it is to be killed. A human being endowed with knowledge certainly commits sin if he kills or torments insignificant creatures, who have no discrimination. The Supreme Lord punishes such a man by putting him into the hell known as Andhakapa, where he is attacked by all the birds and beasts, reptiles, mosquitoes, lice, worms, flies, and any other creatures he tormented during his life. They attack him from all sides, robbing him of the pleasure of sleep. Unable to rest, he constantly wanders about in the darkness. Thus in Andhakupa his suffering is just like that of a creature in the lower species."

-- Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.26.13,17

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

I don't know what you mean, but I want to ask you about aghoris and many ancient meat eater devotees like kannapa. Why are they an exception?
There is no such thing as Tamasik. God is the only thing that exists, if u dive deep enough. Even if u eat Tamasik food, if you are beyond the materialistic desires, nothing will happen, but if you are bound to maya, Tamas will catch hold of u. I am bound to maya, so meat is tamasik to me, if I were not bound to maya, then its not Tamasik for me, because A realized soul knows 'God only exists.'

[TheOne]

Saying I enjoy meat is false, because I am a vegetarian.


But I believe you took my quotes out of context. The act of eating meat is not wrong in my opinion on any level. The killing of another sentient being when there is no reason to kill it is where I get my morals about why I am a vegetarian.

Furthermore, would someone expect a Inuit or an aborigines tribesman to give up meat eating in the name of morals? No, because hunting is part of their way of life and if they did not utilize it they would have died out a long time ago.

By "eating the fruit" I was proverbially alluding to the Bible but was using that as a reference to the physical and social evolution of humans where we became conscious entities and started developing societies.



Exactly, upsy. Most of us on this forum I observed(myself included) love to "talk" about enlightenment, moksha, nirvana, whatever but we don't go around life with the intent of "letting go" and dissolving into the Nature of Brahman. That's one of the main reasons I don't post as often on here anymore. Because in my opinion, the more we talk about something moksha, it's just our false ego trying to preserve itself by not "getting around to" letting go.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Most of us on this forum I observed(myself included) love to "talk" about enlightenment, moksha, nirvana, whatever but we don't go around life with the intent of "letting go" and dissolving into the Nature of Brahman. That's one of the main reasons I don't post as often on here anymore. Because in my opinion, the more we talk about something moksha, it's just our false ego trying to preserve itself by not "getting around to" letting go.
What you say is true, yet there are some that talk about mokṣa, saṁgama and the like because we are possessed by the idea. This possession is more part of our day then not. To understand these concepts helps getting it established in one's mind. For this to occur discussion and review is beneficial. Why so? To remove doubts.
Yet to talk of this then walk away and spend one's day watching cricket misses the point. This silence over time begins to pervade one's life. People then wish to talk of it, bathe in it, be with it.
Yet just posting on the subject and making it an academic exercise is like walking over a diamond mine daily and thinking
there are only rocks below one's feet.

praṇām

[Water]

Most of us on this forum I observed(myself included) love to "talk" about enlightenment, moksha, nirvana, whatever but we don't go around life with the intent of "letting go" and dissolving into the Nature of Brahman. That's one of the main reasons I don't post as often on here anymore. Because in my opinion, the more we talk about something moksha, it's just our false ego trying to preserve itself by not "getting around to" letting go.

Judging others as not "walking the walk" when they try to "talk the talk" is no reason to quit posting.

There are an infinite number of concepts to explore academically and, as a result, spiritually. Very few, if any, can claim that they have been a single pioneer of their own discoveries - be it scientific or spiritual.

Some of us are here on academic-only ventures. Some of us can't/won't/don't want to renunciate for perfectly legitimate reasons. Some of us aren't here to attain moksha for perfectly legitimate reasons.

You can rationalize is to a "stage" of spiritual evolution, dharma, a difference in compelling faiths, and an infinite amount of other reasons.

To put it metaphorically, many of us gears are of difference sizes, ages and suitability. We perform difference tasks. Our contribution can be often obfuscated or blatant. Without the body of work being performed by the gears, there is no reason for them to exist - yet every contribution produces some form of work.

To put it less abstractly - someone may disagree with you only to strengthen your own personal faith. Depriving someone of your understanding, regardless of if they believe it wrong or vice-versa, cannot ever produce a useful contribution. Contributing to even an argument has a chance. :)

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

I feel that water is right. I know that my actions mostly don't follow my words, still I come here and post something in hopes to learn more. Who knows? Maybe one day these discussions may help me achieve it. So, I still do come and see through the forums. Its not good to discourage oneself from learning, feeling that he doesn't deserve it (I used to do this mistake a lot, and still do) and at the same time one must know which at that particular moment is a better teacher, to keep quiet or to ask or to answer. Situation changes needs.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam all: Re: talk ... I think both points are valid. Certainly excessive circular talk ... argument in circles, in my opinion, isn't conducive to spiritual life. I may be wrong, but I believe that is partially at least what TheOne is pointing out.

But the gentle respectful sharing of ideas certainly can be conducive.

But there is great variance in people. Some are very social (talkative) while others just aren't.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

sattvam rajas tama iti
gunah prakrti-sambhavah
nibadhnanti maha-baho
dehe dehinam avyayam

Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes.



Saying Meat is Tamsik is rather crass, in my opinion. Let's examine this statement and I will attempt to clarify it.




I would probably not take exception for being called stupid but if you are countering what I said in the OP you would have noticed I argued from the point of what Shastra says and your attempt to clarify by your opinions just do not stake up.





The ending of life(at an appropriate level) is natures natural way of making room for more life, thus it is said by some "the purpose of life...is to end" because without the competition(at an appropriate level) life would cease to be.The whole value off life is missed if one does not understand the purpose , especially the human form of life

athāto brahma jijñāsā





"now is the time to inquire about the absolute truth"
And what does Lord Krishna says, for having once been you never cease to be , we certainly have a different take on Dharma.



Does someone blame the tiger for eating the zebra? Or the shark for eating the dolphin? No, because that is its nature or Dharma if you will. The Tiger holds no animosity towards the zebra and the Zebra holds no animosity towards the tiger. It's by the ending of life and the changing of energy from one form to another that this "whole game" of the universe works.To make an obvious statement does not cut.
Life is dear to all the species, living in fear running away from the danger , if it can display emotion of love it certainly can display animosity but this thread is not about emotions is it?
Humans are endowed with power of vivek(discrimination) it is not a game, but an endeavour to understand life.





Now we come to humans. We have "eaten the fruit" and have the knowledge of good and evil. The fact that someone ends a life, and eats the animal in my opinion is perfectly fine. It's only when the false ego attaches to killing(or eating) another form of life is when you have to put meat eating into good and evil.What ego have to do with eating I fail to understand, eat I must, but without compassion without ahimsa, it becomes Adharma it is Tamsik, Bhagvat Gita is clear about three modes off eating.



But I would like to add, being a vegetarian is only useful if you haven't proverbially, seen through the illusion of the ego.Well we can use this argument for just about anything, we might as well give up following dharma just in case the ego might come in the way.

Being vegetarian is always good for everyone concern, be it environment, physical health but above all spiritual wellbeing , may be this is my ego who knows.



There is no such thing as Tamasik. God is the only thing that exists

In this state everything is Shiva. I have a long way to realise this, meantime I follow what Lord Krishna says about the Gunas.

Jai Shree Krishna

[PARAM]

upsydownyupsy mv ss, are you an Aghori ?

Meat is surely Tamsic, but you do not know it, and do not want to accept it, just as a Muslim and Christian do not want to accept what Dharma Granthas actually says.

Shivism do not support Non Veg, it is Tamsic.

Better become a true devotee instead of becoming Judge yourself, accept Shiva as supreme judge, pray him with true heart with no hatred against Vishnu, Ganesha, Nandi, and Shiva will show you the way.

[TheOne]

Vannakkam all: Re: talk ... I think both points are valid. Certainly excessive circular talk ... argument in circles, in my opinion, isn't conducive to spiritual life. I may be wrong, but I believe that is partially at least what TheOne is pointing out.

But the gentle respectful sharing of ideas certainly can be conducive.

But there is great variance in people. Some are very social (talkative) while others just aren't.

Aum Namasivaya


I agree with you EM. Both talking, and silence are useful in their proper place. Talking to clarify a point and to explain something are useful, but talking about something someone has a limited understanding of(just to sound intelligent) it is better to remain silent. I certainly don't intend to quit posting but I see that most of the things people argue about on here are purely "political" in nature. And by this I mean, people bashing religions, people explaining the supremacy of the Vedic teachings, or people saying what is right and what is wrong.

All of these, in my opinion is just delaying the awakening. Sure, if someone asks about the Vedas, or your opinion of Christianity, or what are your moral beliefs, it is wise to share, but of course not force these beliefs on others. But most of the talking done on here is done to an empty audience with the only counter-point made by a "solder of Islam or Christianity" which usually give up any logic and rational thought the moment they declare themselves as such. And also, in my opinion there are just as many "crazies" from the Hindu side of the forum as there are in the occasional Christian, Muslim, New-ager, etc.

We usually neglect that there are scholars of religion, and honestly educated people who would like to discuss and / or learn about Vedanta without all the politicizing of religion into the false dichotomy of "us vs. them"


I don't mean to sound self-righteous, but this is what I observe nearly every day, people typing just for typing, and arguing about some of the most useless things ever such as which is the true face of God, Shiva or Vishnu(as if it mattered).


I should stop talking now.

Namaste.

[achintya]

Sri Ganeshprasad ji

I am a Hindu Kayastha. In my community taking meat is part of our cultural heritage since last thousands of years. We have also contributed to the Hindu society through prominent personalities like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Amitabh Bachchan etc.

We have always been considered as a Shudra or more recently, an intermediate caste of Hindus.

Apart from us, the Kshatriyas as well as the Brahmins from Himalayan regions like Kumaon, Nepal, Assam, as well as Indonesia take meat as a component of their diet.

In my community, every child is taught to eat meat and then of course, it is his/her individual choice whether to eat meat or not but we do not discriminate on the basis of food choices.

Your argument that meat is not good for growth is pure nonsense. Meat is the source of protein and it builds muscles. That is why Kshatriya and Shudra communities have been taking meat as part of their diet since thousands of years and though some people have tried to paint the Kshatriyas and the Shudras as non-Hindus, they have not succeeded.

Vegetarianism has always been a political issue in Hinduism as vegetarian communities have always tried to prove their supremacy over those communities who take meat as a component of their diet.

Your thinking of meat as something bad and using the Shastras to prove that you are right is a result of your upbringing in a vegetarian community.

For your information, the measure of violence is also the state of the mind while committing of the act. Even if a person kills another person, he is not convicted of murder until the intention is proved.

In the case of the non-vegetarians, we take our meat as food supplement over our vegetarian diet and what you call as killing of an animal is basically the harvesting of the animal's body for our food.

For your information, vegetables also have life and they also resist when you pluck them for food. Mind you, vegetables are always plucked green i.e. when they are young. Old vegetables are no use as they dry up and wither away. Simply because you cannot feel their pain you cannot say that you are not a violent person because you are vegetarian.

Also, in my life, I know many simple, honest, straightforward and peace loving meat-eaters and equally many crooked, corrupt, violent, evil vegetarians. I am sure you would also be knowing but you choose to ignore what is evident over what has been taught to you as a belief system.

This is not a correct way of applying knowledge. Religious beliefs must be consistent with practical reality otherwise they become prone to superstitions.