Thanks for helping me leave Hinduism

[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/sho...?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 [use to say]
"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

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!