Thanks for helping me leave Hinduism

[PrahaladB]

I have always been agnostic about Hinduism, having witnessed caste discrimination, practice of untouchabilty, ill treatment of females in both India and abroad by a lot of Hindus including members of my family.

Having said that most Hindus I know do not practice the above which is great.

However I have noticed that nearly all Hindus have a 'Holier than thou' attitude when it comes to non-vegetarian food. A lot of the Hindus I know personally including my family think it's acceptible to smoke, be an alcoholic, commit adultery, beat their spouse, sleep around, etc as long as they are not eating no-veg. Infact in Africa and Fiji I have noticed that the vegetarian Hindus consider the natives as almost sub-human as they eat meat regularly. (Interestingly in Mauritius and Malaysia/Singapore the non-vegetarian Hindus are much more integrated with other non Indians/Hindus)

I was hoping that in this site there would be other Hindus without this type of hypocritical attitude, but I was wrong. In the vegetarian section there are entire threads mocking meat eaters. It seems that the Hindu religion itself discriminates against meat eaters as this link shows:

http://hindustudentscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=318&catid=73
''In chapter 17 of the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna categorizes foods into three groups; sattvika, rajasa, and tamasa. Foods that are satvika are those that promote health, longevity, intelligence, and happiness. Foods that are rajasa are those that are too bitter, sour, salty, pungent, dry, or hot. Such foods are said to cause suffering and illness. Finally, tamasa foods are described as improperly cooked, tasteless, putrid, stale, or impure -- unfit for offering in rituals or for meals.
Sri Krishna makes no mention of either eating meat or drinking alcohol. This probably suggests that he didn't even consider them suitable for human consumption. Alcohol, of course, is a poison -- in sufficient quantities, it can be fatal. Generally, drinking small amounts of poison would not be considered healthy.''


This certainly explains the caste discrimination/untouchablity practice as a lot of so called lower caste and dalit Hindu's I know eat meat regularly(including my wife's family who are still Hindus despite facing caste discrimination and the 'Holier than thou' attitude from vegetarian Hindus).

So thanks for helping me make up my mind to leave Hinduism. Oh and before anyone accuses me of being a Christian/Muslim, I am an atheist. I have no intention of joining some Arab religion started by a paedophile and other wierdos.

[satay]

Namaskar,
Thanks for letting us know.

In general hindus don't care if you 'leave' or 'join' hinduism so I do not expect you will get any reaction from members here other than to say good luck.:cool1:

From an admin point of view, since it is not HDF's purpose to ensure that people join or leave hinduism I personally couldn't care less.

Take care,

[Purana]

Hi, it is unfortunate to read that you have a bad experience in your observance. I can't speak for the countries that you had named but for Singapore and Malaysia, the Hindus whether vegetarians or non vegetarians are well integrated with the other races and religions due to social cohesion, tolerance and bonding that had been practices for many years in the vibrant multicultural countries.

In Singapore all males at the age of 18, they have to serve the country via uniform groups such as police, army, navy, air force or civil defence for 2 years. There are Indians, malays, Chinese and Eurasians of all walks of religions and life coming together serving the country. In a closely knitted community, each practices tolerance whenever festivals, ceremonies occurs. During new years, you can see Indian families offering curries, food to their Chinese neighbors. Chinese families offering catered Halal food to their Muslim neighbors and so on.

To summarize, I have not encountered Hindus who are vegetarians or non vegetarians adopting an anti-social attitude.

I wish you all the best and soon in finding the spiritual path that you seek.

[wundermonk]

Seconding Satay - Good luck to you.

I would have preferred had you not taken parting pot shots at Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) though.;)

[Sahasranama]

I don't think you need to leave Hinduism for this, a large part of Hindus is non vegetarian. I am a vegetarian myself, but I do think that the forum policy here can be a hypocritical when it comes to discussion of meat eating in scriptures. I even got banned for a month for discussing animal sacrifice in the vedas. It's quite funny that threads about this subject get closed with moderator comments like "this has been discussed to death already," while topics about Jesus and Muhammed are allowed to be discussed on a daily basis.

[devotee]

Namaste PB,

I would not say like Satay and WM, "Good luck !", as you have given up the good luck which came your way by being born as a Hindu.

You are free to decide what to believe or not to believe. Hindus have cared little about people coming into the fold or going outside. There is no organisation like Church, Mosque which is trying to increase the population of Hindus. This is the reason the Hindus percentage is declining fast in India whereas the Muslims have gone up by the fastest pace in the world (due to conversion, forced conversion, not allowing anyone to go outside once joined by threat of death and finally due to being against birth control). It is sad that you decided to leave it due to Caste discrimination and on trivial issue like Meat eating. That doesn't show maturity on your part. People have handled it much more easily in their life. Moreover, in India, there is reverse Caste discrimination today except in some places where the feudal form of society still exists ... and that is because of the muscle/money power of people rather than Caste-discrimination as a Hindu. I think you could have handled Caste discrimination by changing your place of living if unfortunately you are in place where some rich people are behaving in wrong way because even if you change your religion and still stay at that place, the situation is not going to change. I have many friends who are from the lowest of caste in Hindu society but we mix even at family level without any discrimination as we are friend since our college days.

... but as you have already left Hindu Dharma which has been enriched by the contribution of many Sudra saints e.g. quite a few Rishis of the VedAs, Maharishi VyAs, Maharishi Valmiki and Sant Ravidas ... there is no point talking to you. So, I change my mind and wish you best of luck in your new faith (or no faith) by joining Satay and WM. :)

OM

[satay]

namaste Sahas,
Would you like some cheese with that?


I don't think you need to leave Hinduism for this, a large part of Hindus is non vegetarian. I am a vegetarian myself, but I do think that the forum policy here can be a hypocritical when it comes to discussion of meat eating in scriptures. I even got banned for a month for discussing animal sacrifice in the vedas. It's quite funny that threads about this subject get closed with moderator comments like "this has been discussed to death already," while topics about Jesus and Muhammed are allowed to be discussed on a daily basis.

[Seeker]

Prahlad,

Hinduism doesn't mean you belong to a clan , gang or group. there is no one to receive and acknowledge your resignation letter.

While being a Hindu , you are merely embarking on a path to discover your nature. Along the way you may shed meat eating , wife beating , philandring and what not. These things come automatically.

[Sahasranama]

namaste Sahas,
Would you like some cheese with that?
Sure, if it is vegetarian cheese.

[IcyCosmic]

Well I hope you find another path that allows you to discover yourself and gain knowledge of self my friend.

Good luck.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: If every time someone discovered a trait of their religion or a characteristic of an adherent of said religion that they considered wasn't suited to them, there would be no religion left. Pretty quickly. The meat-eaters leave because of the vegetarians, and the vegetarians leave because of the meat-eaters. No wonder the world is rich with so many sects and subsects. :)

Aum Namasivaya

[charitra]

Prahlada, you chose a screen name that clearly exemplifies the devotion of a hindu in the most trying of circumstances. Therefore it is unwise on my part to look away when someone like you expresses hurt, especially accusing partisan attitude of hindus. I will do a Narasimha avatara in your favor here lol. Many vegetarians are overplaying the card to say the least.

All Kshatriyaas eat meat, this very tribe has produced both Rama and Krishna along with Pandavas and kauravas and many more. These belong to what we call the warrior and ruler class, who at the sametime remained Dharmakartas (custodians) of most hindu mandirs up until recently. Through out the documented history, they along with all their soldiers ate meat . Yadavas raised Krishna from day one, with lot of love and adoration, and that community eats meat as well. Kashmir and Bengal has any number of Brahmins who eat fish and meat. As you have rightly pointed out from Bali to Boston majority hindus eat meat, and that is not a new trend at all.

Meat eating is un-satvic, but certainly not a zero sum game for hindus. Dalai lama eats meat as well (he is not a hindu). Go hathya mahaa paapam (slaughtering cow is a great sin) goes the saying, but that adage didn’t extend to fish and fowl, any reason? Is there a middle path here, yes I guess so. Good Hindus mustn’t develop attachment to materialism, and food, sex and wealth fall in the realm. Instead ideally they must immerse themselves in sadhana to best utilize this janma. Ahimso Paramo dharmaha, the sages declared. Arguably, even for health reasons it is best if one becomes a/ more vegetarian . Namaste.

[Believer]

Namaste PrahaladB,

So long you are on the path of self discovery, you are still a Hindu.
Run as you might, but with your intellect, you will never be too far from it.
So, we await your second coming!

Pranam.

[Tāṇḍava]

The meat-eaters leave because of the vegetarians, and the vegetarians leave because of the meat-eaters. No wonder the world is rich with so many sects and subsects. :)

Aum Namasivaya

Lets not even start on whether "hot" spices are good, vegetables that grow below ground, whether fruit has to be fresh or can be dried, preserved, etc.

[Aum namah Śivāya]

नमस्ते PrahaladB,

All people fall under ignorance and delusion, until they have reached final liberation. Therefore, do not be shocked if even Hindus display ignorant behaviors. It does not mean that God doesn't exist or that there is no freedom to be found, just that such people have not found it yet. Ignorance manifests in different forms, but ignorance it is.

Hinduism is a great religion, but people may choose to follow or reject the grace offered therein, as we all have free will. Religion is a tool by which we may reach God, but no one can be forced to use that tool correctly.

I will pray that you reconsider your decision. Not, necessarily, to leave Hinduism, but to be an atheist, for no more happiness is found there than anywhere else, I am sure you will find.

ॐ नमः शिवाय

OM

[Seeker123]

Prahalada,

It is your decision only but I wanted to point out some fallacies in your observations, thinking and knowledge about Hinduism.


However I have noticed that nearly all Hindus have a 'Holier than thou' attitude when it comes to non-vegetarian food.
A majority of Hindus in India are non-vegetarian. So your statement does not make any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country



I was hoping that in this site there would be other Hindus without this type of hypocritical attitude, but I was wrong. In the vegetarian section there are entire threads mocking meat eaters.
It is true that this forum leans vegetarian. But recently in a thread there were posts stating how butcher occupation was perfectly ok. You may want to read the Vyadha Gita which talks about an illumined butcher. Philosopher Swami Vivekananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda), describes the Vyadha Gita in one of his lectures in Karma Yoga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Yoga) and says that it contains one of the "highest flights of the Vedanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyadha_Gita
Nisargadatta who was considered self realized ate meat till his death. The Ramayana has phrases that suggest upper castes ate meat.



This certainly explains the caste discrimination/untouchablity practice as a lot of so called lower caste and dalit Hindu's I know eat meat regularly.
Your observation is dead wrong. Lot of upper castes Hindus eat meat! This survey shows only 28% upper caste Hindus (who are not brahmins) are vegetarians
http://hindu.com/2006/08/14/stories/2006081403771200.htm
So eating meat and caste discrimination has no linkage. As for untouchability the Vedas make no reference to it as far as I know. The puranas do but they are not Shruti. To discuss about caste, intent of it etc need an entire thread. Just remember there have been many sages who have been born in a low caste.

So should one be vegetarian? It is suggested that to make spiritual progress it is better to be vegetarian. There are some sects which do not accept this even! All I can say is try it and see if it helps in your spiritual progress.

[PARAM]

Caste discrimination, practice of untouchably are never being the part of Hinduism, Varna system is not caste system. Your Buddhists believed in it (If you are follower of Ambedakar), they firmly supported this in their texts. Reservation system has made you more unbelieving.

Who give ill treatment of females? Only Hinduism have kanya pujan, devout to mother and female festivals. Go and find any other of your which any have.




Sri Krishna makes no mention of either eating meat or drinking alcohol. This probably suggests that he didn't even consider them suitable for human consumption.

Bhagvad Geeta is not one chapter or one stanza, but a summary of Vedas and Shastras. Sri Krishna himself never ate meat or drunk alcohol, he avoided what is wrong, not even any of his true devotee did such consumption. You haven't read Bhagvad Geeta but just claim that meat and alcohol is not banned by believing the versions of anti Hindus.


I am an atheist.

Who cares? You said you are leaving Hinduism.
You blamed Indian Hindus too much

Lets go with non Atheist all vegetarian and upper caste Hindus.

Mangal Pandey, Lakshmi Bai, Tantya Tope, Nahar Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Ram Prasad Bismil, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose. List is endless I cannot name everyone, but you have a single meat eater dalit who did anything for their motherland? Even Birsa Munda was not a dalit, there was no caste reservation during his time, and he too was vegetarian.
So now come on and take who is leading Hindus - Narendra Modi, Ravindra Kumar Pal, Ashok Mochi, Uma Bharti, now wait, the list is endless and everyone cannot be named, these are just few names. The truth is nobody will think caste when Hindus are united, and most of the Hindu hearts wants Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, nobody will care his caste. Modi is vegetarian so he is not your type.

This was just about India, Hindus of other countries will tell you about their motherland, in a simple way entire Earth is our motherland as Maa Prithvi.

[arp1]

what I don't understand is, When they say "Leaving Hinduism" means what? if he is not going to follow one of the desert cults (which does't accept other paths )which proclaims them selves as true path? so that so he can deny universal path and Humanity . but he said he is not going to follow that, then what he means? he means "he will not be a good human being ? "
who is the looser here ? "there is a Tamil saying "ஏரிகிட்ட கோவிச்சுக்கிட்டு ,கால் காழுவாம போனால் யாருக்கு நஷ்டம்” if that guy knows Tamil . he will know what I mean.

[Seeker123]

Hindus have cared little about people coming into the fold or going outside. There is no organisation like Church, Mosque which is trying to increase the population of Hindus. This is the reason the Hindus percentage is declining fast in India whereas the Muslims have gone up by the fastest pace in the world (due to conversion, forced conversion, not allowing anyone to go outside once joined by threat of death and finally due to being against birth control). OM

That may be true. But Hindus and other Eastern faiths have got to play defence when faced with predatory religions. We need to take efforts else we may dwindle to zero. If we dont who will? I would argue it is our religious duty to support our Dharma.

"My duty is to impress upon you again and again that it is your responsiblity to keep the Vedic tradition alive. Whether or not you listen to me, whether or not I am capable of making you do what I want you to do, so long as there is strength in me, I will keep telling you tirelessly: "This is your work. This is your dharma. " It is for the sake of the Vedas that the Acarya (Adi Sankara) established this Matha. So, no matter how I keep deceiving you in other ways, as one bearing his name I should be guilty of a serious offence if I failed to carry out with all sincerity at least the responsibility placed on my shoulders of protecting the Vedic dharma. That is why I keep speaking again and again, and again, not minding the tedium, about the need to sustain this dharma."

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap41.htm

[PARAM]

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

You are yourself a dead wrong.

There are no phrases in Ramayana or any other Dharma Grantham which supports eating meat or drinking alcohol.

There was no caste system either and only karma based Varna system was available there.

If you believe better show the phrases instead of claiming tamsic eating in the days of DHarMa. Any hypocrite claiming as godman is not really a sadhu. aDHarMi claims this too much but when it comes to prove anything, they don't have any proof expect to show their anti-Hindu behave in open.



I am not quitting Hinduism just because you people have made theories of Flesh eating, alcohol drinking, female presicution in Dharma Granthams, your personal agenda is unacceptable.

[devotee]

Namaste Param,

Let's not be so passionately attached to what we believe in. I am a vegetarian but a majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians including Brahmins in states like North Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Odisha. The VAmArgis and Aghori Sadhus are well known for their being non-vegetarian. In fact, the Aghris have no qualms in eating meat from the corpses too.

In fact, in Valmiki RamAyaNa, there are a few verses where Meat eating or offering to God is suggested :

1. suraaghaTasahasreNa maamsabhuutodanena cha |
yakshye tvaam prayataa devi puriim punarupaagataa || 2-52-89

89. devii= “Oh, goddess! Upaagata= After reaching; puriim= the city (Ayodhya); punaH= again; yakshhye= I shall worship (you); suraaghata sahasreNa= with thousand pots of spirituous liquor; maamsa bhuutodanena cha = and jellied meat with cooked rice; prayataa= well-prepared for the solemn rite.”

“Oh, goddess! After reaching back the city of Ayodhya, I shall worship you with thousand pots of spirituous liquor and jellied meat with cooked rice well prepared for the solemn rite.”

2. tau tatra hatvaa caturaH mahaa mR^igaan |
varaaham R^ishyam pR^iSatam mahaa rurum |
aadaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukSitau|
vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaH patim || 2-52-102


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.

3. samaashvasa muhuurtam tu shakyam vastum iha tvayaa || 3-47-22
aagamiSyati me bhartaa vanyam aadaaya puSkalam |
ruruun godhaan varaahaan ca hatvaa aadaaya amiSaan bahu || 3-47-23

“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]

Again Kabandh talks to Rama on reaching Pampa Lake :

"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. 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..."

Again this vow of RAm suggests that probably he ate meat :

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


I am not suggesting by quoting these passages that RAm ate meat or whatever. However, it does give an indication that meat eating was not that much abhorred in that time otherwise, these passages would not have come up in the context of RAm in VAlmiki RAmAyaNa.

Moreover, there are many a ShAkta temples where meat/fish is offered to Goddess during worship. This meat is eaten by people as prasAdam.

So, we are wasting our energy by unnecessarily becoming emotional on this issue. Let's stop it here. It has been discussed ad nauseam in folder Hot Topics in this forum. So, if anyone is interested in this topic, he/she can very well visit that folder.

OM

[Seeker123]

You are yourself a dead wrong.
There are no phrases in Ramayana or any other Dharma Grantham which supports eating meat or drinking alcohol. .

Let us go around the mulberry bush. We discussed this in a different thread (posts 44 to 57)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7438&page=5

At that time you said those translations are wrong. When I asked for the correct one you didnt know. I am not asking for your belief but for direct evidence that those phrases do not suggest meat eating. If satisfied I dont have a problem changing my mind. So here I am posting again. I quote 2 instances from Valmiki Ramayana - 1. Vali asking Rama; 2. Agastya Vatapi episode. I have underlined specifically.

For Vali's comments to Rama the reference is 4-17-39 below:

पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव |
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः || १-१७-३९
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]

On the question of Agastya and Illvala and Vatapi episode see below the verses before Agastya enters the picture:


iha ekadaa kila kruuro vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH |
bhraatarau sahitau aastaam braahmaNaghnau mahaa asurau || 4-11-55

55. ekadaa iha braahmaNa ghnau= once, here, Brahmans, killers of; kruuraH vaataapiH api ca ilvalaH= cruel ones, Vaataapi, even, also, Ilvala; bhraatarau mahaa asurau sahitau aastaam kila= brothers, dreadful demons, together, they were here, they say.
"Once upon a time verily cruel demon brothers Vaataapi and Ilvala were here together, and they the dreadful demons, they say, used to be Bhraman-killers. [4-11-55]


dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam ilvalaH sa.mskR^itam vadan |
aama.ntrayati vipraan sa shraaddham uddishya nirghR^iNaH || 4-11-56

56. dhaarayan braahmaNam ruupam= disguising, Bhraman's, semblance; ilvalaH= Ilvala; sam skR^itam vadan= sophisticatedly, speaking; aamantrayati vipraan= invite, Brahman; sa shraaddham uddishya= obsequial ceremony, purpose of; nir ghR^iNaH= pitiless ones.
"Disguising in Bhraman's semblance and speaking sophisticatedly that Ilvala used to invite Brahmans for the purpose of obsequial ceremonies, where Brahman are fed after usual ceremony to appeases their manes. [4-11-56]


bhraataram sa.mskR^itam kR^itvaa tataH tam meSa ruupiNam |
taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa || 4-11-57

57. tataH= then; meSa ruupiNam= in ram's, form; tam bhraataram= that, brother [Vaataapi,] is; sam skR^itam kR^itvaa= perfecting, made to [cooked deliciously]; tataH shraaddha dR^iSTena karmaNaa= then, according to obsequial rites, and deeds; taan dvijaan bhojayaamaasa= them, Brahman, he was feeding.
Then Ilvala used to make his brother Vaataapi into a ram, perfect that ram's meat into deliciously cooked food, and used to feed Brahmans according to obsequial rites and deeds. [4-11-57]


tato bhuktavataam teSaam vipraaNaam ilvalo abraviit |
vaataape niSkramasva iti svareNa mahataa vadan || 4-11-58

58. tataH teSaam vipraaNaam bhuktavataam= then, those, Brahmans, when surfeited; ilvalaH mahataa svareNa vadan= Ilvala, with loud voice, shouting; vaataape niS kramasva iti abraviit= oh, Vaataapi, you exit, thus, he said
[U]"When those Brahmans are surfeited with that ram's meat, then Ilvala used to shout loudly, "oh, Vaataapi, you may come out." [4-11-58]


tato bhraatur vacaH shrutvaa vaataapiH meSavat nadan |
bhittvaa bhitvaa shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam viniSpatat || 4-11-59

59. tataH vaataapiH bhraatuH vacaH shrutvaa= then, Vaataapi, brother's, words, on listening; nadan meSa vat= bleating, like, a ram; bhittvaa bhitvaa= tearing, tearing; shariiraaNi braahmaNaanaam= bodies, of Brahman; vi niS patat= used to lunge out.
"Then on listening his brother's words Vaataapi used to lunge out bleating like a ram, tearing and rending the bodies of those Brahmans. [4-11-59]


braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi taiH evam kaama ruupibhiH |
vinaashitaani sa.mhatya nityashaH pishita ashanaiH || 4-11-60

60. taiH [taabhyaam]= by those two brothers; pishita ashanaiH= raw meat, eaters kaama ruupibhiH= them, thus, guise-changers; [or, pishita aashayaa= for flesh, greedy ones]; braahmaNaanaam sahasraaNi= Brahman, thousands; evam vi naashitaani samhatya nityashaH= this way, are ruined, together, always.
"This way they the guise changing demons always ruined thousands of Brahmans together, greedy for raw-flesh as they are. [4-11-60]

[PARAM]

Let us go around the mulberry bush. We discussed this in a different thread (posts 44 to 57)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7438&page=5 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7438&page=5)

At that time you said those translations are wrong. When I asked for the correct one you didnt know.

What is this? I give the correct translation and you only know just online translators. That time Satay closed that thread otherwise I was not going to keep quit against those who want to say Ram killed Vali to eat him.



I am not asking for your belief but for direct evidence that those phrases do not suggest meat eating. If satisfied I dont have a problem changing my mind. So here I am posting again. I quote 2 instances from Valmiki Ramayana - 1. Vali asking Rama; 2. Agastya Vatapi episode. I have underlined specifically.

For Vali's comments to Rama the reference is 4-17-39 below:


पंचपंचनखाभक्ष्याब्रह्मक्षत्रेणराघव |
शल्यकःश्वाविधोगोधाशशःकूर्मःचपंचमः || १-१७-३९
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]

This is a question and accusing of Vali to Ram Show me a single verse anywhere in Ramayan when Ram, Lakshman, Sita did eat meat even in their 14 years of exile or their royal life as Prince and Princess in the Kingdoms of Janak and Dashrath, or their education in the Ashrams of Brahmins like Vashishtha, Bhardwaj, or even after coronation of Ram as King. All animals were with Ram, you forget Jambavan and his army of Wild-Bears.

Read the entire Ramayan and not just satisfy yourself with just one-two shalokas.




On the question of Agastya and Illvala and Vatapi episode see below the verses before Agastya enters the picture:

This is where readers mix up with online copied materials.

This is why they were Asuras because they were Brahmin killers (You are accepting this yourself). Brahmin-killers don't invite in pro-Brahmin way, but to destroy them. Those Asuras cooked him as food from goat's milk (vegetation, already mentioned many times Vedas prohibits flesh eating and Rishi-Munis were for all satviks, never tamsik. They were unaware what they were eating, as the flesh was served all cut mixed with vegetation made of goat's milk.

One important thing is how come a Ram becomes alive in somebody's body when it was eaten? This tamsik meat eating destroyed the satvik power of those Rishi-Munis, this is what destroyed them.

Muslims and Christians have made all translations in their own way and those are accepted to only fools. You mentioned the same thread where that Muslim was making the reference of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verses 6.4.18., and was claiming for eating beef, while the truth is it say about eating rice mixed with milkfood from cow's milk.

Agatsya in the Vatapi episode was already aware what kind of food was served to him, so he cursed them and destroyed them, he did not even touched anything offered by those Asuras.

[kallol]

Dear PB,

Thanks that you have chosen such. It will help you. Main thing is reduce stress of mind. If you cannot win then avoid. You have chosen to avoid and that is good for you.

I admire those who have made choice to be Vegeterian and I do not give much weightage to born vegeterian.

We had enough debate on this and both sides have good reasons to prove their side. It is personal choice - and I leave it that. Some people are passionate about it and they are ready to take their minds to low level by treating others badly. This exactly is what they are supposed to do away with. That proves the fact that they did not understand the basics of vegeterianism.

Yes caste system is still very strong in some parts of India. I moved from bengal to UP for my first job. Generally people in bengal will ask " what have you studied, etc". The first question I faced in UP was "what is your caste". But you need to have mercy on them as they have not been exposed to the higher knowledge. There was no Vivekananda, Chaitanya, ramakrishna, Sankaracharya, etc to guide them.

So be well and be a good human - wherever you are. All my best wishes.

[PARAM]

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

He is already not a Hindu, this has become a habit of anti-Hindus to blame Hinduism for anything or for nothing. Why did he use Hindu name Prahlad who was devotee of Lord Vishnu and grandfather of Brahmin king Mahabali?

Sometimes you will find Dalits are saying to leave Hinduism because they find Hinduism supports eating meat against their culture of vegetarianism, and sometimes you will find they are deciding to leave because Hinduism do not supports eating meat against their culture of meat eaters. There are both meat eaters and vegetarians in all countries, castism exists but this doesn’t make any proof of existence of castism in different countries.


These are not Hindus but other groups, some are paid, some are clever people, and some are misguided by paid and clever anti-Hindus. They will just add their old story of castism when these sc,st,obc themselves enjoy castism, while there is no future for General (upper castes / orphans), and these dalits don’t spare their own forefathers for wrongdoings who ruled and worked as Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas in pre Islamic days.

[kallol]

Dear Param,

Some school child may not understand Einstein's theory and may not want to pursue that subject and he will provide some excuses. How can I blame him (he is still not matured to understand).

But people, who think that they are true hindus, also should look into their own self. The total scripture is towards moderation of mind and the huge waves it has in terms of kama, krodha, etc. If one gets quite perturbed by small things then the very purpose of him following the scriptures is negated.

It is unbecoming of anyone to think bad of others. I can go with people who are not matured enough. But for people who pretend to be matured and then think bad of others - it is not hinduism also.

So live and let live. The knowledge of hinduism is enough strong to sustain through any changes. We will live only for few years Hinduism has lived and will live ever and can only grow stronger as more and more science is discovered.

So be at peace.

[PARAM]

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

I understand what you mean but this is not really what aDHarMis are, there are those who claim Ram and Krishna were beef eaters, when we ask for proof, they just say something that is not the part of the life of Ram or Krishna. If they are charged for supporting anti-Hindu views, they give the internet link where somebody is supporting their views in Hindu names.

Like this -


OM
Jai Sri Ram
Jai Sri Krishna

In Srimdbhagvad Geeta, sri Krishna describes how beef helped Ram to conquer Ravana the Brahmin.
blah blah blah blah....................


How can we accept this? All this is clear anti-Hindu.

You know this man who is claiming to be a Hindu who is leaving Hinduism because his meat eating is not supported by upper caste Hindus. How come this is a problem to him when there are many meat eaters who are even misusing the name of Hindu deities?

There is no peace (adhwara) when there is violance (dhwara).

[kallol]

Out of 1 .5 billion hindus in the world may be 1 % will have such views. These kinds of elements are there every where. No need to give them your time.

[Seeker123]

What is this? I give the correct translation and you only know just online translators. That time Satay closed that thread otherwise I was not going to keep quit against those who want to say Ram killed Vali to eat him.

This is a question and accusing of Vali to Ram Show me a single verse anywhere in Ramayan when Ram, Lakshman, Sita did eat meat even in their 14 years of exile or their royal life as Prince and Princess in the Kingdoms of Janak and Dashrath, or their education in the Ashrams of Brahmins like Vashishtha, Bhardwaj, or even after coronation of Ram as King.


.

You provided translation for 4-17-40 where as the verse under discussion was 4-17-39. You did not and still have not provided a translation for 4-17-39.

I never said Ram ate meat - you are setting up a pointless straw man argument. In the last thread I specifically said "I am not saying Ram ate meat".

The statement by Vali in 4-17-39 suggests that at that time certain animals were considered edible by brahmins and Kshatriyas. Of course that does not automaticlally mean Ram ate meat.

[Equinox]

Prahalad,

I dont understand why you have to leave Hinduism for the reasons you stated. It doesnt make sense to me why you should be so affected by such things... Hinduism is for yourself to discover the deeper meaning of life.

It depends on how you think of it really. But blaming it on petty issues like caste discrimination and vegetarianism is a bit too immature in my opinion. There's so much more to being a Hindu.

Anyway, it's entirely up to you in choosing a path to follow. May you find happiness in whichever path you take. Good luck!

[PARAM]

You provided translation for 4-17-40 where as the verse under discussion was 4-17-39. You did not and still have not provided a translation for 4-17-39.

I never said Ram ate meat - you are setting up a pointless straw man argument. In the last thread I specifically said "I am not saying Ram ate meat".

The statement by Vali in 4-17-39 suggests that at that time certain animals were considered edible by brahmins and Kshatriyas. Of course that does not automaticlally mean Ram ate meat.


It is you who is setting up pointless straw; I did not provide 4-17-40.

It is all the life that give the proof, and not what just somebody make claims. You yourself accept Ram never ate meat, so what is the proof in this baseless claim? There are many more rotten anti-Hindus who claim that in Ramayana it is mentioned Ram ate meat even if they can't prove it.


Vali himself was not claiming this is from Vedas and Shastras (is this mentioned in 4-17-39?) this was all allegations. You can't understand the meaning of shaloka, a shaloka is just a sentence and it is not complete without others, there is no proof without reading complete of them and 4-17-40 is just after 4-17-39, means what vali said just after that allegation.

What I said is the answer to your allegations to the support of wrong translations. If we accept you are right, what you have to say about Jambvan and other bears?

[Seeker123]

Sure you cant just look at one sloka independently. But in this case the meaning of 4-17-39 makes perfect sense when taken with 4-17-40. You are trying to ignore 4-17-39.

Then there is the Vatapi episode and numerous others stated by Devotee and others.

You can read Ramayana after ignoring all those slokas and you are free to believe whatever you want. Since we will not get anywhere with this discussion there is no point in discussing more. A better argument that one can adopt is Ramayana is not Veda, so even if it makes references to meat eating so what?

[PARAM]

Sure you cant just look at one sloka independently. But in this case the meaning of 4-17-39 makes perfect sense when taken with 4-17-40. You are trying to ignore 4-17-39.

Then there is the Vatapi episode and numerous others stated by Devotee and others.


Who is ignoring the fact, me or you? I will read the whole Ramayan without ignoring any Shaloka

I already answered Vatapi episode, misprinting will not work, but you ignored Jambvan and other bears just for the claim of 4-17-39.
Ask somebody about cricket, in USA they will describe it as an insect and in India it is a sport. Cricket is both insect and sport but when it is mentioned in one sentence people jumping up to say it is insect or it is sport, will this make any sense?
Read this – Men in blue lost in cricket.
Google translation in Hindi - नीले रंग में पुरुष क्रिकेट में खो दिया है. What is sense in this? Use any other language and try if you are satisfied.
Men in blue lost in cricket. –clear meaning is –“Indian cricket team lost the cricket match.” But if somebody say I am ignoring facts, then what to answer back? They have to know what the meaning of 'Men in blue' in cricket is.





You can read Ramayana after ignoring all those slokas and you are free to believe whatever you want. Since we will not get anywhere with this discussion there is no point in discussing more. A better argument that one can adopt is Ramayana is not Veda, so even if it makes references to meat eating so what?



I will read a Grantham in whole without ignoring any shaloka, Vedas are the words of ॐ and Ramayana is a Historic Grantham in the time when life was followed by the rules of Vedas.



If you want to prove it supports eating meat, show it - If the Vali 4-17-39 means eating meat then why it is only for Brahmins and Kshatriya and why not Vaishya, Shudra, Asura? Ram and others did not eat any meat, they don’t eat even Jambvan, will this mean they were not Brahmins and Kshatriyas?


Same in Vatapi episode if eating meat knowingly is true, then those Brahmins and Kshatriyas might have eaten something like this, prove it. The whole life of Sita, Ram, Bharat, Lakshman, Shatrughan is mentioned in it, Vishvamitra, Vashishtha, Bhardwaj, etc's life is mentioned there, even Valmiki have to become a vegetarian, prove that he ate meat after becoming a Maharshi.