Re: Thanks for helping me leave Hinduism
Originally Posted by
Seeker123
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?
[CENTER][B][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=7][COLOR=Yellow] ॐ[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
[/CENTER]
Bookmarks