isnt Lord Shiva the Lord of the Universe. He does not need sustanance. He is beyond it.
OM Gam Ganapatye Namaha
isnt Lord Shiva the Lord of the Universe. He does not need sustanance. He is beyond it.
Banned
True, but meat is cooked in different ways than vegetables which lends to its better taste. But anyway, this isn't a food-related website and its clear that neither of us is going to budge on this.
Banned
Very true, Spiritualseeker, He is beyond nourishment which is why this whole debate on non-veg vs. veg food is pointless.
In your seva...
meat is better in taste no, but different taste than vegetables, yes.Originally Posted by OmSriShivaShakti
satay
aum Sri GaNeSAya namah.
Pranam Atanu ji
If we are to consider the truth, then let us reflect on it.
We are discussing Lord Ram of Raghu kul, in the lineage of sibi chakravarty, who gave his flesh for the hawk to save the pigeon.
I would like to quote from manu dharmasashtra who is Ram's own ancestor.
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.
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).
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).
To eat the flesh of animals for one's own enjoyment or nutrition is the greatest sin. Sri Rama came to set the perfect ideal of dharma for mankind to follow. To claim that he engaged in sinful conduct is foolish.
So I have to question the verse quoted or its interpretation, let’s not forget there are many version of Valmiki Ramayan and on top of it interpolation of the scriptures we know has happened.
The following references from the Valmiki Ramayana are provided 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.
There was no need for him to give up meat, forest would have given him ample opportunity so I am happy with above translation.
It is not Amishaam(आमिषम् ) in the in 2-20-29 it is munivadaamiSham(ascetics= munis).."Like munis"
Jai Shree Krishna
Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
Self Seeker
Namaste,
That is a good reply from you, Ganeshprasad ji. In fact, the verse quoted in Atanu's post in reply to OSS's post too doesn't say that Lord Rama ate meat.
Dhruva has correctly noted how such verses are extrapolated to the extremes ! With the above verse it extrapolated that he did not only ate meat but also indulged in taking alcohol !
Evil mind tries to see evil even in those places where there is none !!
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Member
Namaste Ganeshprasadji,
I agree and that is what I indicated in my view above also. Hedonistics guess about what was but do not point out the noble decision, which was an example for all to follow.
I am totally neutral with both translations. But 'amisham' pertains mainly to 'flesh'. If one translates that as Royal fare, that also is fine with me. The point is austerity -- mainly freeing oneself from the bondage of senses; and also obtaining many other benefits, as you have pointed out.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.
There was no need for him to give up meat, forest would have given him ample opportunity so I am happy with above translation.
It is not Amishaam(आमिषम् ) in the in 2-20-29 it is munivadaamiSham(ascetics= munis).."Like munis"
Jai Shree Krishna
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 21 June 2009 at 01:40 AM. Reason: austerity
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
With Respect to Tripod portal
Namaste Devotee,
You are correct. Scripture, which is the Word (and thus the Universe) is expanded (or seen sprouting) in different fashion by different minds. Scripture is actually the blueprint/master design of sprouting of Universe and its going back into mind. Scripture records how it happens. It should be true of Bible and Koran also.
This world is nothing but the word as contained in the Veda.
For example, Aswamedha Yagna is killing of Mind -- the fast moving horse, which becomes the Universe. Asvamedha puts a stop to all these conceptions. But how some people will use the text of the asvamedha? To score a point against Hinduism, as if.
I agree with TTA on this to a large extent. Without any comprehension of Self and its kalpa taru Pragnya, many western authors rarely have any spiritual insight. With respect to their own scripture they are almost blind and equate Black Sea (mentioned in book of Isaiah) with physical Black sea. They equate Zion, which is an abode of everlasting bliss and peace, with a mere piece of land. What will they do to Veda?
On the other hand, to see literal meaning in Bible or Koran (by us Hindus in anger and by some western-hindus) may also be wrong.
I re-echo what simex said. One can hardly comprehend scripture literally.
Rig 1.164. 39 The rks exist in the imperishable, beyond vyoman (space) where all gods abide. He who does not know the Imperishable, what can he accomplish with the hymn? Those alone who know it sit collected.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 21 June 2009 at 07:02 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
svabhAvamadhurA
On the other hand, to see literal meaning in Bible or Koran (by us Hindus in anger and by some western-hindus) may also be wrong.
I re-echo what simex said. One can hardly comprehend scripture literally.
Rig 1.164. 39 The rks exist in the imperishable, beyond vyoman (space) where all gods abide. He who does not know the Imperishable, what can he accomplish with the hymn? Those alone who know it sit collected.
Namaste,
The "Christians" here in the US (and, I guess elsewhere due to the weed-like proliferation of evangelical missionaries) believe that the Bible *is* to be considered literal Word, and then proceed to argue about which translation or version is correct!
There are debates about whether Catholics or Mormans are even to be considered "Christian" due to their versions of the Scripture. And, there are even more debates about whether the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" implies that "Jesus = God" or that "Jesus does not equal God" (and no debates about that debate, heh).
They just don't get the paradox of the ONE and MANY and being the SAME.
OM
ZN
yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .
It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.
Lord Shiva is completely vegetarian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks