If you are using a screen reader, you may wish to switch to basic HTML
for a better experience.
Sub:
rama's food habits Parts 5,6, 7 and 8 Inbox
Dear Srivaishnavaas,
First of all my praNaamams to you all.
My respects to sri Anbil swamy.
This is only a response mail to be in private circulation – primarily. But if anbil swamy decides to circulate in list, I have no objection.
Part a: On anbil swamy's portion of mail quoted below as first mail, I will not offer any comments.
Though I would like very much to quote from Monier Williams Sanskrit English dictionary always, I referred V.S.Apte dictionary and did that portion. Since it is concise, I used the meaning, whatever given there. [I have both on my table ready].
Please substitute with what anbil swamy has added.
The usage of meat in sraardhams was given from mahaa bhaaratham to prove that it was not a taboo those days and knowing fully well that it has no connection with raama's food habits.
Also while referring that only came other points from bheeshma's lectures to yudhishtira.
Part B: On Mr. Manivannan's post forwarded by anbil swamy as post 2
dear manivannan swamy – Thank you very much for the comment that I am a regular reader of MGV's posts.
– But would like to add -- it is 'too too early' to pass such remarks " as hardly there was any information on what Rama ate but rather the series seemed to focus on whether Rama could have eaten meat!!"
In my series – in posts upto 8 - I have not yet gone to that stage of even 'raama's birth'.
Then how can I give his habits.
What I wanted is to cover slowly is in same way from sankshepa, then how vaalmeeki has covered even minor details like sabari food, then go sargam by sargam.
Meanwhile, since sri sudarsan's swamy's mail came, I got diverted to some extent, which I said in my 8 th post.
Since the basic spark was sri deepak's mail, I had to add that sundara kaandam portion and uththara kaanda portion of raamaayanam and deal that ayodhya 56 th sargam portion to confirm meat eating was not a taboo.
Also this portion given below, I did not use in my mail to list – but gave in the private mail to anbil swamy and Deepak –
quote
– And after slokam 33 in this sargam there is a prakshiptha slokam which is gOvindaraja's paatam – a variation available in gOvindaraajaa's paatam only -
vanyai: maalyai: phalai: moolai: maamsai: yathaa vidhi
adhibhir japaischa vEdhOkthai: dharbhai scha sasamith kusai:
thou tharpayithvaa bhoothaani raaghavou saha seethayaa
thadhaa vivisathu: saalaam susubhaam subhalakshaNou ||
here again he offered as per rules – the roots, fruits, and meat – and offered tharpaNam, and then entered and settled in the house. So nowhere in this sargam it is stated he ate meat.
Unquote
Again in list mail also I repeated what I sent as a private draft mail first to anbil swamy as reply to Deepak - in which I said raama did not eat – as in sargam 56 – but offered as bali
a kshathriya going for hunting even before 12 - giving a bali in 25 or 26 – is NOT at all a taboo - those days – the lines are very clear – [also covered in lakshmaNa series].
Again I said even in my lakshmana series, lakshmana telling raama 'you know the saasthrams right'.
Also in slokam 1-18-25 and 26 – there itself vaalmeeki has stated all 4 are well versed in vedhaas including dhanur vedham – the science of archery.
So let swamy read the mail again.
– as vaalmeeki in that 18th sargam of baala kaandam itself says 'raama goes for hunting on horse back and whenever he goes lakshmaNa follows like his bahi praaNa'.
– [upto slokam 23 it is birth of the 4, and connected enjoyment, naming of 4 children].
– In 31st slokam straight - raama goes for hunting and that too it is referred in context of describing the closeness of lakshmana and raama.
– By the time 'sending of raama' is asked by visvaamithra and raama sent with him, he was only 12 years
– not even 18 - a 'major' in present day context – so a 'major' can do whatever he likes – legally permitted - and his dad cannot question –
– but raama was 12 when he goes for hunting.
– Hunting is a game of 'himsa or ahimsa' for 'pleasure or not' – let Manivannan swamy clarify.
– I quote the slokam below. 1-18-31.
mR^iSTam+annam+upaaniitam= delicious, food, brought [for him];
ashnaati+na+ ca= eat it, not, also;
tam+vinaa= him [Lakshmana,] without;
yadaa+hi+hayam+aruuDhaH= when, verily, horse, mounted;
mR^igayaam+yaati+raaghava= for a hunting game, goes, Raghava.
Rama would not eat food brought for him, however delicious it may be, without Lakshmana, and whenever Raghava goes on a hunting game... mounted on horseback, [Lakshmana follows him behind...] [1-18-31]
Here I would like to add as added points –
Vaalmeeki is a hunter basically
He saw another hunter killing one krouncha pakshi among two
That too when the two birds were in mithunam – which mithunam is supposed to be not seen by anybody else
Vaalmeeki also cursed the hunter who killed the bird
Then he repented why he did that cursing.
So the kaavyam itself starts with 'the hunting scene' – a 'killing' scene, a jeeva himsai scene - and then the cursing slokam becomes a mangala slokam – maa nishaadha.
So 'hunting' – is it 'himsai' or 'ahimsai' – let swamy explain.
And throughout the raamaayanam somebody is killed intentionally, somebody is defaced. May be bhagavaan raama does that as part of his avathaara kaaryam – dhushta nigraham. so this killing of animals for doing bali is also part of the established karmas as found in vedhaas. Let it be himsai or ahimsai – let us accept that.
[Further the parNa saalaa entry is in ayodhya kaandam with mruga bali as said by raama. In aaraNya it is entry with pushpa bali done by lakshmana not raama. To that extent manivannan swamy to stand corrected].
I hasten to add here for the above comment on vaalmeeki and starting of the kaavyam
– it is NOT with the intention of deriding or degrading ramayanam – which is more and more dear to my heart and mind – 'and doing research in that – as a result of which these articles appear' - as V.Sadagopan swamy communicated yesterday also
– but I am presenting facts.
On that 'pathram phalam pushpam thOyam' – I have nothing to say except that the intention or the mind of offering to the lord is more important than whether it is 'PPPT'---- swamin, hope I understood geethaa correctly to a very little extent – may be 0.1% .
Part C: On third mail from sudarsan swamy
– bheeshma's answer is very clear
– in case of doubt what 10 vedha virpannaaL say is the final
– nowadays viz. in this kali age – they say no yagnams, only prapaththi for sreevaishnavaas, for other vaishnavaas and others it is naama sankeerthanam only
– if any yagnam then only all these meat etc comes and then doubts.
– NO yagnams itself.
– Even if it is so then also no animal sacrifice.
– So there is no question of 2 periods for sree viashnavaas – prior to and after prapaththi
– like B.C. and A.D. of Christians.
– so I hope I answered that open question to me.
Part D: On the response mail again from sri manivannan –
Manivannan swamy – please clarify - What are the other dhevathaas referred to in the yagnam where mruga bali is offered – if it is not brahma, dheva, Pithru, bootha and manushya yagnaas – apart from this list of 5 - who are the other 'dhevaas' offered meat in yagnaas.
I am ready to learn from any source and I do not claim any big scholar - except in civil engineering – of course I am a very good 'civil engineer' and knowledgeable enough in that field, served and retired now – knowledge gained still remains - not on these 'subjects'.
This Stephen knapp ref I have already seen.
another 'hedonistic themes in ramayana' from where I quoted that 'uththara kaaNda ramayanam portion is already covered in my exchange with anbil swamy as private mail.
Also exchanged is a note in valmikiramayan website itself on rama's vegetarianism - sent to sri anbil swamy and deepak.
therein the authors of website strongly say it is jains influence that vegetarian twist is given in the meanings of ramayan in later days.
Already I quoted a portion of 'govindaraja' who offers his salutation to 'nammaazhvaar' in his first line of baala kaandam as his guru vandanam. And all sreevaishnavaas accept govindaraja vyaakhyaanam as an acceptable one than others.
Another information on this nonveg – is even today bengali brahmins and brahmins of orissa close to bengal are 'fish eaters'.
The other day when I was in kolkata I had a bengali colleague, when my friend introduced me to him saying he writes on ramayan etc, that bengali friend started quoting from ramayan and started asking questions to me.
Just then he finished a good fish item in lunch – I ant describe what it is - where I was also forced to eat a 5 star lunch - of course a full veg for me – my course outside is always paruppu saadham and thayir saadham.
Part E: on the mail of Sri Tatachar swamy of date [27th Saturday]
Swamy is clear in his understanding. Hats off to him. I do not know his age. At his age he is very clear in his understandings.
Raama lived as a 'brahmachari' when seethaa was by his side – in the forest and later.
How it is – this was one of my earlier articles
– as per manu's law - raama is a brahmachari – as also arjuna –known for his many wives -
again another quote from maha bharatha referred in that article.
The meaning of brahmacharyam was different as per manu – same way the bali and non veg stuff.
– 'not totally absenting from sex' as interpreted these days.
Part F: on mail again from manivaanan – that frog story – I also read it in 'raamayana kuttik kadhaigal' in tamil. Thanks for referring that.
Let me progress with the series and meanwhile we will continue these discussions outside the sriragasri as sri anbil swamy said. But if swamy advises me to keep off I am ready for that also -
[may be that is what is running in anbil swamy's mind - since swamy has not released next 5 portions to the list - till bala and athiala manthrams].
Regards to all and once again my respects to anbil swamy
MGV
PS: read KST's mailjust now. my points are already statedon KST. again my appreciation only for his clear understanding.
On 10/28/07, Tatachar@xxxxxxx < Tatachar@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Swamin,
No point in going around and around. Two facts are quite obvious:
They ate and it is hard for our acharyas and people like you to digest that!
Adding pages and pages of vyaakhyanams is totally unnecessary and are rarely
supportive. Our Achaarya explanations for most part are appealing only
because the followers trust in their wisdom - in the absence
of that, they often sound shallow and narrow. Basically each one of them
have earnestly destroyed the basic universal truth of sanathna dharma.
Just think about the "avarNeeyas" so dear to our Achaaryas (all sorts,
not just Srivaishnava). If you understand Purusha suktam, can there be
any avarNeeya- it is like telling some people are born with no blood.
This is a good example on how they are willing to go out of way
to protect their mookneram tradition instead of truth!
There is no taboo about meat consumption in our foremost scriptures. It is the attitude that counts. Many peopel who eat meat in this country have also camapigned to banish use of animals (such as mice) for basic cosemetics products discovery and research. We can not even smear baby oil on mouse back in our company. The announcement of abandoning use of animals for research altogether was made while we were relishing on just served barbequed beef/pork ribs at a special celebration for 50th anniversary of our reserach center!
So Rama feeling pity on ailing frog ALONE DOES NOT prove that he was not used to meat consumption and all those 300+ variety of animals an dteh animal sthey kille din teh forest was only to offer to meat hungrt devataas in yagnya!
dAsan
K.S. tAtAchAr
--
Vasudevan MG