Ashwamedh problem

[Sahasranama]

How can I get the complete book in print and how much would it cost?

I got it from a bookstore in The Hague Netherlands a long time ago. I did pay a lot of money for it, the shopkeeper tricked me in paying too much for it telling me it is a rare book. It is published by the chaukhamba vidya bhavan, so you could contact them.

[dhyandev]

jaydev sharma rips purushmedha,hindi only.I will translate on request

[dhyandev]

The Veda teaches that life is sacred, that animals must be protected for they are beneficial to mankind. But then why have animals been decapitated for religious rites hitherto? How is it that several learned men both of the east and the west have asserted that animal sacrifices are sanctioned by the Veda? Before this difficulty can be solved, it is necessary that the true meaning of the Vedic word for sacrifice should be understood. This word is �Yajna.� It is a word which is very important in Sanskrit literature. It is this word with which the life history of a Hindu opens and closes. The great grammarian Panini says that �Yajna is the performance of a Deva Puja, Samgati and Dan. The word Samgati signifies association, or concentration and focusing of powers (of the body and mind).Puja stands for worship and legitimate use. Dan means charity or self-sacrifice, giving away or expending. Thus the word Yajna comes to mean the legitimate use of Deva by means of corporate or combined action (or concentration of bodily or mental powers), expenditure of wealth or powers.To get at the full significance of our Yajna we should note the meaning of Deva. The word is derived from Diva which has the following meanings:

(1) Krida.. Play and Diversion.

(2) Vijigisha.. Desire for Victory.

(3) Vyavahar.. Social Relations.

(4)Dyuti.. Sight.

(5)Stuti.. Praise.

(6)Moda.. Happiness.

(7)Mada.. Self-Consciousness.

(8)Swapana.. Negation of motion.

(9)Kanti.. Glory.

(10)Gatishu.. Knowledge, motion, and attainment.

Thus Yajna may be defined as �the association of men and concentration of powers for social happiness, conquest over nature or enemy (of one�s county or humanity); promotion of the well-being of society; the propagation and dissemination of enlightened principles; the maintenance of national self-respect; the increase of national glory; and the cultivation of acts of peace and war.� It may also be added that Yajna also means such concentrated effort as secures man spiritual advancement and salvation. That the word Yajna was used in the above sense by the Vedic Aryas may be established by referring to certain well-known practices of the Rishis. Every man was required to perform Pancha Maha Yajna every day. These five duties are

(1)Brahma Yajna (meditation and worship of the Lord);

(2) Deva Yajna (pouring libations of clarified butter and odoriferous substances in the sacred fire and associating with the learned);

(3)Pitri Yajna (pleasing and serving parents, teachers and learned men called Agni Shvatta-yajna),

(4) Bhuta Yajna (giving food to the fallen, degraded,weak and maimed, dogs, cows, ants, etc.); and

(5)Atithi Yajna (showing hospitality to guests, especially those itinerantpreachers who go abouit teaching people to be pure and religious).

It is most significant that one of the five Yajnas commands us to do deeds of mercy and charity unto the lower creation. What can have such

Yajnas to do with spilling of blood? The Naimittika Karmas (periodical sacraments), as distinguished from the Nitya Karmas (daily duties), were also

called Yajnas. To instance Garbhadan Sanskar (the attempt to propagate our like) is known as Putreshti Yajna.Similarly Yajnopavit (sacred thread) and Viwah (marriage) are also called Yajnas. The cremation (the Antyeshti) is sometimes styled Purusha Medha Yajna.Coronation was known as

Rajasuya Yajna. At this Yajna the officiating priest exhorted the king to be good and to do good, to promote peace and prosperity of the nation, to protect the weak against strong, etc. (Shatapatha Brahmana).In the same Brahmana occurs the formula Vag vai� Yajno (speech is Yajna) III.-I-30.In the

Upanishads man is called a Yajna or sacrifice (Chhandogya III.16) The Sapta Rishis (the seven holes in human face�eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth) are said to perform a great Yajna.The Gita (III.10, IV. 24 & V.29) also shows that the word Yajna has spiritual significance.Professor Max Muller also supports the views expressed here. (India, what can it teach us? p. 227) It may be argued that though the word Yajna is used in the above senses it may also signify animal sacrifices. This can be rebutted by referring to the Rig Veda. The Veda says that the Devas, learned and pious men, perform Adhvara Yajna.The word Adhvara means that in which no Himsa (injury of any kind) is done to any creature. (Nirukta I.33)
THE NAR MEDHA (MAN-SACRIFICE).

Some writers maintain that human sacrifices, of necessity, were prevalent in the Vedic age. They were necessary for disposal of the prisoners of war, for the immolation of wives and concubines, for the requirements of the necromancy and for propitiating the tutelary deities of the ges of those time.Now this historical argument, which has been advanced by Dr. Ranjendralal Mitra, cannot hold water. The laws of the Aryan warfare were most humane and the Aryans were chivalrous knights. They declined even to fight a man who had lost his armour or who had turned his back on them. They also promised safety and protection to the conquered everywhere (Manu VII.90-93, Ramayana I.10-11, etc.).As to burning of wives etc., it has been now clearly established that Sati nowhere exists in the Vedas. (Raja Ram Mohan Roy�s Works)

Many of our learned men deny the existence of black art in the Veda (Swami Dayanand). Even those who believe in it have not shown in any reliable authority that ceremonials connected with it were bloody.Regarding the propitiating of gods, we assert that the religion of the Vedas is monotheistic and not polytheistic or henotheistic. This we do on the authority of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Pt. Gurudatta Vidyarthi, Sri Aurovindo Ghosha,Pt. Shiva Shankar Kavya Tirtha, Maurice Phillips, Louis Jacolliot and Prof. Ludwig.

It should also be borne in mind that even they that believe the Vedas to be polytheistic have the fairness to allow that the Vedic gods are beneficent and not malificent.Thus the so-called historical argument has been shattered to pieces. Now the passages that are quoted in support of human sacrifices may be dealt with. These are two, namely, that which occurs in the first mandal of the Rig Veda and that which is in chapters 30 and 31 of the Yajur.

STORY OF SHUNA SHEPA.

In the first passage they say that Shuna Shepa (son of Rishi Ajigarta), bound down to three pillars, prays for deliverance from that place till his bonds actually loosened and he is saved from immolation.We, on the following grounds, state that the passage in question has absolutely no reference to immolation of sacrifice:�

(i) Rishi Jaimini is our great authority on the interpretation of the Vedas. He, as well as Sayana and Yosaka, says that Vedas contain no historical references. Therefore the prayers in question could not refer to the immolation of any historical personage.

(ii) The Veda gives absolutely no other name except that of Shuna Shepa (which should be taken in generic sense and not as a proper noun) in the passage. No other personages of the received tradition are to be found in the Veda.

(iii) According to the current story Shuna Shepa was sold for sacrificial purposes by his father. His king wanted to unjustly immolate Shuna Shepa instead of his own son and his father was acting as an executioner. Now the prayers in the Veda open by calling on God to enable the devotee to see his father once more. This prayer looks unreasonable in the mouth of one whose father is present before him and whom the father treats so cruelly.

(iv) In over ninety verses of prayer there is absolutely no reference to the unjust and cruel behaviour either of the king or of the father.

(v) Prayers for being released from bonds are offered by Vasishta (Rig. VII. 86.5) by Gritsamad (Rig. II. 28.5) and by Bhardvaja (VI.74-4). Evidently these refer to bonds of sin. As in these passages so in that of Shuna Shepa there is no reference to physical bonds or bloodshed.

(vi) Maurice Phillips says: ��.we are not justified in concluding that Shuna Shepa was bound as victim to be sacrificed.

His bonds and ropes may be taken in a figurative sense.�

(vii) Romesha Chandra Datta also supports this view.

The general sense of the passage is that a sinner Shuna Shepa (not a particular individual) or sinful man/prana[?] (vital power) prays for deliverance from sin. He approaches the Deity first from one point of view and then from another till he worships Usha or Jnan (realization) and succeeds in breaking through his bonds of sin.

STRANGE CONFUSION.

The sacrificial translation of the 30th and the 31st chapters of the Yajur Veda is altogether stupid and inconsistent with itself. It creates such deities as Kshatra, Tapas, Nirta (dance); sport, laughter, pastime, etc. Clearly no pantheon of the world speaks of such divinities.There is no independent historical evidence to show that human sacrifices were ever offered anywhere in the world to divinities like these.The copula Alabhate which is supplied by these translators is not always correct and in agreement with the context. The Taittiriya Brahmana does not put this copula in all places.The meaning that is given to this copula is not in accordance with its Yogic sense. But all Vedic words are Yogic as proved by Pt. Gurudatta Vidyarthi in his book The Terminology of the Vedas�a book that had had the honour of being a text at the Oxford University.Alabhate is made up of (a) which means well or thoroughly and (Labha) which means to get or to secure. This interpretation is supported by Manu (II.170), by Subodhini Tika of the Mimansa (II.3-17) by Megha-Duta and by Apte�s Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

The stupidity of the sacrificial translation becomes palpable in the case of the 31st chapter or the Purusha Sukta of the Yajur Veda. Here the Deity is said to have one thousand heads and one thousand eyes! (Ordinarily one head has two eyes).

ORDER OUT OF DISORDER.

The moment we take the Yogic sense of the words the whole of the 30th chapter becomes one consistent and clear whole, so elevating and instructive. It begins by praying to the Almighty Savitra to help us in political affairs and to give us an educated, orator-like, just and righteous king. It describes in detail the qualities, qualifications and duties of a king; it names the elements that go to make up a perfect and ideal body political. The last mantra of the passage, which, to the distorted fancy of the perpetrator of cruelty in the form of animal sacrifice, requires the victims to be one too tall, one too short, one too white, one too black, etc., would be translated as under:

�Oh King as wise men accomplish their purposes by having intimate and thorough knowledge of things, great and small,visible and invisible, so you should be conversant with all sorts of things and acts��

[dhyandev]

THE ASHWAMEDHA—HORSE SACRIFICE.

A great mischief has been caused by the misinterpretation of this Yajna. To understand the true significance of this Yajna we must understand what

Ashwa is. As it is usually with the Vedic words, this word has a great number of meanings.Shrijut Aurovindo Ghosh has emphasized the fact that the Vedic roots have various meanings. In supporting his position he has referred to the words ’Chandra’ and ’Gau.’ Ashwa according to the Shatapatha Brahmana (XIII.3.3) means God. Taking hold of this meaning we can without the least hesitation say that Ashwa Medha has spiritual significance. This view has been held up by Sjt. Aurovindo Ghosh in his ’ Arya. ’ Pt. Bhagwandas, M.A., in his Pranavavad also supports this view.Ashwa means horse as well as all such physical forces which can enable us to move quickly. In one place (Rig Veda) we read of Ashwa Agnim (Ashwa is heat). In another place we read Ashwa, the Agni (heat) carries, like the animals of conveyance, the learned who recognize its distance-carrying properties (Rig. 1.27-1). This idea is also supported by Shatapatha (III.3.29-30). On this principle Pt. Gurudatta translates the chand[?] hymn of the Rig Veda. His translation of the opening verse is as under:

“We will describe the power generating virtues of the energetic horses endowed with brilliant properties or the virtues of the vigorous force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for purposes of appliances (not sacrifice).Let not philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics ever disregard these properties.”

It might be said that the sacrificial translation, as usual, is full of stupidities. It assumes deities that none has ever heard of.It states that a horse is born of gods. It involves a self-contradiction inasmuch as it propitiates gods with horse sacrifice,yet believes that gods are annoyed to hear the praise of the horse to be sacrificed. Lastly, it disregards the clearest injunctions of the Vedic lexicographers and grammarians.

Ashwamedha also refers to polity. Political wisdom should so pervade the notion as Ashwa (God) pervades the universe. This is supported by the Shatapatha in the following words: “A king administers justice to his subjects, governs them properly, encourages learning among them, and performs homa by throwing the samagri (odoriferous materials),clarified butter in fire. This is Ashwamedha.”

On this principle the great Swami Dayanand Saraswati translates the 23rd chapter of the Yajur Veda. The learned writer strengthens his position by quoting [Rig.?] i.21, Shatapatha XIII.2.12.14-17, XIII.1.3.2, 2.6.15-17 and also XIII.2.2.4-5 and several other authorities.

The greatest argument in favour of this translation is that in it there is nothing immoral, obscene and disgusting as is to be seen in the sacrificial translation. The Mimansis—our great authority on interpretation—say that we must always take for granted that the teaching of the Rishis are always reasonable and rational.

THE MAHABHARATA.

This voluminous poem is so important and so infaranimg: greatly supports the views expressed here.In Anushasana Parva (115.56) is given the history of King Vasu. He was thrown from heaven because, though he knew that flesh was inedible he declared it to be edible. In the

Shanti Parva (338) the King is said to have fallen because,though he knew that animals should not be sacrificed, he asserted that they should be burnt in sacrificial fire. The Ashwamedha Parva (91.11 and the following) contains a very beautiful speech made by the Rishis of great penance moved by compassion at the condition of animals to be sacrificed by King Sharka. They say: “This method of sacrifice is not auspicious, oh Purandara! Animals have not been ordered to be slaughtered. Oh puisant one! These preparations of thine are destructive of merit… Oh thou of a hundred years do, thou, perform a sacrifice with seeds of grain that have been kept for three years.”The opinion given here finds support from the following in the Shanti Parva (265.45):

”Only those who transgress fixed limits, who are short of intelligence, who are atheists and sceptics, and who desire the acquisition of celebrity by sacrifices and religious rites speak highly of destruction of animal in sacrifices.”

“The pious Manu has spoken highly of harmlesshess in all acts. Indeed men kill animals actuated by desire of evil.”

The chapter 264 (6) echoes the same idea when it says: “All acts that are done without injuring creatures come to us both here and hereafter.”

The 47th shloka of the chapter 262 of the same volume calls cow by its Vedic name Aghanya (that which should not be killed) and the following asserts that Nahusha committed a sin in killing a cow. The chapter 272 giving the story of the Brahmana Satya is coroborative of the same. The Brahmana though a great ascetic diminished greatly in virtue for he thought of offering a deer at his sacrifice where he usually offered fruits, etc.

The 20th chapter of the same book suggests that at sacrifices animals were given in charity (and not killed). This idea is also found in the Mimansa.
source

[Omkara]

This interpretation does not seem to be in accord with what the puranas and itihasas depict,or the instructions the brahmanas give in this regard.
The allegorical interpretation of the story of sunashepa is interesting,but needs to be clarified further.An explanation of the meanings of the names of the other characters and of he justification for imposing a contrived symbolic meaning would lend some credibiltiy. To it.As it stands,it cannot pass muster.

[Guiding Thoughts]

Vedic religion is very scientific. Yagya's were a way of life and there is scientific validation that if done rightly with the right ingredients they purified the atmosphere. Ashwamedha yagya's were large scale yagya's where a great nos of people in a region could participate .

The Ashwamedh horse has the following significance and none of it has to do with animal sacrifice:

1. The Ashwamedh Horse represent the animal instincts within us which have strong roots ( jealusy, hatred, anger, ill will, ego etc) and the purpose of these Yagnas was to spiritual charge people so they could work at conquering their base sells.

2. In ancient times as there were no billboards or TV or Radio , the advertising for these large scale events was manual. It was done by way of attaching an advertisement of the Yagna to the body of the horse. The horse then went to every street corner, village in the kings kingdom to advertise the event.

That is the glory of Yagna and the ashwamedha horse. At no point was it sacrificed. ANimal sacrifice is a distortion of the Vedic thoughts. The Vedas refer to sacrificing the "animal within us" and not a PHYSICAL ANIMAL.

Thanks .
For scientific explanations of Vedic philosophy pls visit us at :

http://guidingthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://www.spiritualbee.com/

[Omkara]

Namaste,

Please acquaint yourselves with our scriptures before issuing blanket condemnations of those who hold true to scriptural statements which you disagree with.

Maharaja Dasharatha's ashvamedha-yagna did involve sacrifice of a horse, as well as several other animals. This is explicitly mentioned in the Bala-Kanda of the Ramayana of Valmiki.

According to the 5th chapter of Manu-Samhita, the animals sacrificed in such a yagna get a higher birth (i.e. as human or deva).

These yagnas were the standard in the ages prior to Kali-yuga when proper brahmins were present who could execute the sacrifices flawlessly and for whom the spoken mantras did bear their fruits.

In short, if one wants to defend Hinduism, one must first understand Hinduism. If one defends Hinduism by quoting all sorts of revisionist theories, one will merely look like a laughing stock in front of those critics who actually read the texts. And make no mistake - they do read the texts. Therefore, we must understand the texts better than they.

regards,

This pretty much sums up my reaction to the previous post.If anybody has information from legitimate scriptural sources on the matter,please post it here.If not,do not post neo-Hindu revisionist theories in the midst of a serious discussion.

If you have proof that animals were not sacrificed,please share it.Do not simply claim they were not.

[Omkara]

There seems to be anargument going on in the talk page of the cited wikipedia article also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashvamedha

[Omkara]

These translations from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan translation of Valmiki Ramayana seem to indicate that kshtriyas and brahmanas ate meat.Could someone provide Gita press translations for these?Griffith's and Arshia Sattar translation which I have,seem to corroborate.

For Vali's comments to Rama the reference is 4-17-39 and 4-17-40 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]

and then 4-17-40:

चर्म च अस्थि च मे राजन् न स्पृशन्ति मनीषिणः |
अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि सो अहम् पंच नखो हतः || १-१७-४०
40. raajan = oh, king; maniiSiNaH = sensible people; me carma ca asthi ca = my, skin, also, bones, also; na spR^ishanti = will not, touch; maamsaani ca = meats, also a bhakSyaaNi = not, to be eaten; panca nakhaH = five, nailed one; saH aham hataH = such as I am, I am killed.
"Sensible people will not touch my skin and bones, oh, king, nor meats from my body are to be eaten, such as I am, a five-nailed animal, I am killed. [4-17-40]
'There appears to be no reason as to why a five-nailed animal like me is to be killed, when there is no reason for political, religious, hunting, or food purposes. Then this act of yours shall have an ultimate purpose isn't it....'

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

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]

[ShivaFan]

These translations from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan translation of Valmiki Ramayana seem to indicate that kshtriyas and brahmanas ate meat.Could someone provide Gita press translations for these?Griffith's and Arshia Sattar translation which I have,seem to corroborate.

Namaste

Actually Omkara brings up an engaging question, which no doubt has been a thorn of controversy on the HDF in the past, of which is the inquiry did Brahmins eat meat in the past (we know many who say they are Brahmin which do so in the present)?

I know part of this question also asks whether did Kshatriyas eat meat, now, in the past, and why as well. But I believe they did, do, and will � I will note Ramayana in a minute. But I am sparked by the question of Brahmins eating meat.

Perhaps a new thread (outside of the current thread) on its own standing might be interesting since it doesn�t hurt to re-engage such popular analysis even if discussed in the past. To be honest though, I probably would stay out of the discussion but would enjoy reading the comments of others and their ideas on the matter.

Just a brief comment, I am taught that Garuda ate snakes. And that Garuda is a Brahmin, yes? So there is one concrete example of a Brahmin eating meat. But I mention this only because, the comparision between God and man are not the same, and doing so is not in context of Brahmins, since I believe this discussion is about humans and not Gods. Just because Garuda ate snakes, does not mean it is ok or wise for me to eat snakes. I may take small portions of pit viper or cobra venom daily (which I do) but this is not meat eating, I may drink cow urine but this is not meat eating, and I as a human currently in a human body, I should not recommend that I eat snakes nor should others no matter what guna or vision or ranking or anything one is. Gods are not humans, if Garuda eats snakes that does not have anything to do with what I should eat.

So if a Deva or Devi does something, that doesn't mean we should also do that.

One thing I agree with, the world needs more vegans because they all seem to be such beautiful souls. Of course there are exceptions, and some vegans are monsters or even historical mass murderers of humans. But such bad examples seem to be few and far in-between.

Everyone knows my stance of varna and jati, we do not need to go down that argument as no one will change my position where I object to four varna becoming 6,000 jati, and while I am taught the truth of karma, I do not agree that caste is strictly by birth (I believe in the role of gunas and I have been taught that one can become a Brahmin in a single hour of a single life). But in the context �did Brahmins eat meat?� if a Brahmin accidently eats meat, I am not so sympathetic to others who take advantage of such an accident and who are very strict and call such a Brahmin to now be untouchable and such. Sometimes evil people do tricks for all sorts of perverted reasons. I do want to mention that I consider these modern attacks on Brahmins, including trying to put cow or pig in their food as tricks, and the ignorant fools and politicians and despots who persecute and want to pull the holy thread off the Brahmins as an abomination deserving of immediate countermeasures.

But in regards to �eating meat� (among Brahmins), I believe personally that all Brahmins should, must and according to scripture, restrict from eating cow or pig, and vegetarian is better, even if that is not currently always true among their community. So as far as I am concerned, if any Brahmin is eating for example cow or pig on purpose, they are not nor ever will be a Brahmin to my view no matter who their parents are.

I think all Brahmins will not eat the cow or the pig. I cannot find any examples of this from personal observation, though I have seen many Hindus eating things such as sausage which is pig, I have seen Sikhs wearing a turban and gobbling down sausage for breakfast in public (but I did not know if either were Brahmin � note, I am told a Sikh can also be a Brahmin so I am not putting both into one bucket out of ignorance, and yes I understand that the general consensus says otherwise). So the term �meat eating� is not the same discussion per say as Vedic and other restrictions on eating �animals of merit� (such as the cow) or �dirty animals� (such as the domestic pig).

A Brahmana is suppose to be satwa guna. That means they should not want to do harm to other creatures. So it is a question of doing harm to other creatures, and not a question of eating meat, yes? Even then, there is room for reason. If a tiger is about to attack you, you may do harm to that tiger. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes, even eating something which is not meat can also do harm to other living creatures, and thus violates the principle of satvik. The example is given of the sacred white jackal of India which some grow a horn that is hidden under the fur and has magical powers. This jackal is said to eat only a certain fruit, while his other brothers eat rodents. Now, let us use this example, and assume the fruit that this jackal eats only grows on a few trees in a grove next to the Pampa Lake, and me and my friends go and eat all the fruits off those trees, and even chop down those trees. I have not eaten any meat. But I have done harm to another creature. I have taken the food away from the animal of merit. So I am guilty as charged.

So isn�t this the guiding principle?

Goud Saraswat Brahmins in India eat meat such as fish, many proudly proclaim they do. These Brahmins have roots that proclaim linage going back to the time when they were Brahmins on the banks of the Saraswati River. Today they are mostly found on the west coast.

It may be true that the evidence in the Ramayana shows Brahmins eating meat. But I do not believe there is any evidence of such eating cow. There might be a question over boar, but wild boar is not the same as pig, but of course eating boar is very bad and should be avoided. As far as Rama eating meat, I think He did but very little, and Rama was a great warrior and had duty to perform and if He did so that does not mean anything bad to me in my opinion. There are reasons for everything Lord Rama did, there are no contradictions.

So for what it is worth, these things in the Ramayana are not of a concern as it might be to others. But I also am interested in the query of Omkara regarding further translations, such as from Gita press, which would be greatly appreciated!

Om Namah Sivaya