Thanks for helping me leave Hinduism

[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.