Hindunet: The Hindu Universe: Lord Rama Never Ate Meat

ParaShakti wrote:

"(2) Rama hunted the golden deer at the request of Sita who said - "bring it alive if not kill it and we shall eat its meat and take its skin" "

Please refer at this time to my rebuttal to your objection #1, specifically, on the lack of any real evidence provided by you to support your position. All you have provided is a statement in English which you allege to be a translation of a Sanskrit verse from the Raamaayana, but you have not even provided the verse numbers for us to cross examine your "evidence."

In reality, Siita never said anything about using the golden deer as "meat," since there is no evidence that she ate meat. Here is what she actually said (from Raamaayana, Aaranya-kaaNDa):

aaryaputra abhiraamo asau mR^igo harati me manaH |
aanaya enam mahaabaaho kriiDaartham naH bhaviSyati || 3-43-10 ||

"Oh, son of the noble, that delightful deer is stealing my heart, oh, dextrous one, bring it round, it will be our plaything... [3-43-10]

iha aashrama pade asmaakam bahavaH puNya darshanaaH |
mR^igaaH caranti sahitaaH camaraaH sR^imaraaH tathaa || 3-43-11 ||

"Here in the threshold of our hermitage many a deed with adorable manifestation are moving about collectively, like that Caamara, Srimara deer, too... [3-43-11]

R^ikSaaH pR^iSata sa.nghaaH ca vaanaraaH kinaraaH tathaa |
vicaranti mahaabaaho ruupa shreSThaa mahaabalaaH || 3-43-12 ||

"Also like that, the herds of dappled deer, Kinnaraa-s, and monkeys, those are best in their display, and oh, dextrous one, the great-mighty bears are also moving about... [3-43-12]

na ca asya sadR^isho raajan dR^iSTa puurvo mR^igaH mayaa |
tejasaa kSamayaa diiptyaa yathaa ayam mR^iga sattamaH || 3-43-13 ||

"I have not seen any coequal of this, oh, king, by brilliance, by tameness, or by the lustre [of its skin,] as to this extraordinary deer... [3-43-13]

naanaa varNa vicitra a.ngo ratna bhuuto mama agrataH |
dyotayan vanam avyagram shobhate shashi sa.nnibhaH || 3-43-14 ||

"Diversely coloured, amazingly limbed, and dappled with gemlike dapples it is [moving] before me, nonchalantly... and it is glistening and enlivening up the forest like the moon... [3-43-14]

aho ruupam aho lakSmiiH svara sa.mpat ca shobhanaa |
mR^igo adbhuto vicitraa.ngo hR^idayam harati iva me || 3-43-15

"Ah, what a bearing, ah, what a brilliance, and what a bleat... and this amazingly limbed deer is brightening [this place] wondrously, and it is [here,] as if to steal my heart... [3-43-15]

yadi grahaNam abhyeti jiivan eva mR^igaH tava |
aashcarya bhuutam bhavati vismayam janayiSyati || 3-43-16 ||

"If the deer is drawn into your capture alive and well, it will be surprising and creates astonishment [to one and all...] [3-43-16]

samaapta vana vaasaanaam raajya sthaanaam ca naH punaH |
a.ntaHpure vibhuuSaartho mR^iga eSa bhaviSyati || 3-43-17 ||

"On our completing the dwelling in forests, and again when staying in the kingdom of ours, this deer becomes a masterpiece in palace-chambers... [3-43-17]

bharatasya aaryaputrasya shvashruuNaam mama ca prabho |
mR^iga ruupam idam divyam vismayam janayiSyati || 3-43-18 ||

"And oh, lord, this exotic design of this deer creates astonishment to Bharata, to you, the son of the nobleman, and to my mothers-in-law also, [in palace-chambers...] [3-43-18]

From the above evidence, it is abundantly clear that Siita was captivated by the golden deer's beauty and wanted it as a pet. There is simply no other motivation behind it. Of course, in order to capture the deer, she would have to send Raama to hunt for it. And since people did not carry stun guns in those days, there was a possibility that the deer might not survive the hunt. Acknowledging this possibility, Siita says:

jiivan na yadi te abhyeti grahaNam mR^iga sattamaH |
ajinam narashaarduula ruciram tu bhaviSyati || 3-43-19 ||

"If that best deer does not come into you capture while alive, oh man the lion, at the least its deerskin will be enjoyable... [3-43-19]

nihatasya asya sattvasya jaa.mbuunadamaya tvaci |
shaSpa bR^isyaam viniitaayaam icChaami aham upaasitum || 3-43-20 ||

"If that being is killed, I desire to overlay its deerskin on a seat of tender darbha, the grass-blades, and sit at your nearby... [3-43-20]

In such a situation that the deer was accidentally slain, Siita argued that its skin could be used as a sitting place. This was a custom in Vedic culture, that yoga was often performed on a deerskin covered in darbha grass, and references to this practice can be found in Bhagavad-giitaa chapter 6, among other places. The point is, however, that Siita wanted the deer as a pet, and argued that if the deer was slain, at least its skin could be used. She never argued that the deer's meat could be used for food; this would be barbaric.

Some might still argue that because the deer's death was a possibility acknowledged by Siita, that still it was cruel for her to request Raama to try and bring it back alive. However, at the very beginning of the chapter, it is obvious that the brothers suspected the deception, as Lakshmana is recorded as having said:

sha.nkamaanaH tu tam dR^iSTvaa lakSmaNo raamam abraviit |
tam eva enam aham manye maariicam raakSasam mR^igam || 3-43-5 ||

But on seeing at it, Lakshmana became incredulous and said to Rama, "I figure out this Deer as that Maareecha, the demon... [3-43-5]

caranto mR^igayaam hR^iSTaaH paapena upaadhinaa vane |
anena nihataa raama raajaanaH kaama ruupiNaa || 3-43-6

"Oh, Rama, when kings were delightedly moving around in forest in their game of hunting, this Maareecha with his sinister devices killed many of them, for he is a whimsical guise-changer... [3-43-6]

asya maayaavido maayaa mR^iga ruupam idam kR^itam |
bhaanumat puruSavyaaghra gandharva pura sa.nnibham || 3-43-7 ||

"He is an expert in many wiles and he assumed this wily aspect of scintillating Golden-Deer, and oh, manly lion, it is noting but the wilily city of Gandharva-s, [which any trickster can create to make-believe...] [3-43-7]

mR^igo hi evam vidho ratna vicitro na asti raaghava |
jagatyaam jagatiinaatha maayaa eSaa hi na sa.mshayaH || 3-43-8 ||

"Oh, Raghava, this kind of animal that is with amazingly gemmed dapples is really non-existent, and oh, lord of the world, this is truly phantasmal, undoubtedly... [3-43-8]

Knowing therefore that the deer was really Raavana's servant in disguise, the reasoning behind the decision to capture or kill it (while trying to capture it) now becomes clear.

Yet Siita did not seem to acknowledge this possibility, and she was urging her husband to capture the deer at the risk of possibly killing it. One might reasonably doubt as to whether or not Siita was whimsical and cruel. However, referring to the golden deer's unusual features (as quoted above), and Lakshmana's conclusion that it was an illusion generated by the demon Mareecha (also quoted above), we must recall that the deer was meant to intoxicate and bewilder the senses so that Raama and Lakshmana would be sent away to capture it. And since Siita and Raama were playing the roles of ordinary human beings, despite their divinity which is known to us as the readers, Siita had to behave as if she were not thinking properly. Under ordinary circumstances it is unlikely that she would have asked her husband to risk slaying a deer merely to capture it as a pet. But these were obviously not ordinary circumstances.

From all of the above, it is obvious that there is no fault in Lord Raama's slaying of the golden deer, and nothing in the actual Sanskrit evidence reveals that there was any desire to consume meat on the part of Raama or Siita. Hence, the objection that Siita wanted the golden deer for its meat is clearly refuted.

(continued in next posting)

--------------------
H. Krishna Susarla M.D.
Achintya Mailing List
www.achintya.org

Post Extras:

"(3) Rama performed the horse sacrifice to expand his kingdom and fought against anyone king who opposed"

Many great kings performed the ashva-medha yagna (horse sacrifice) for the propserity of their kingdom and the world. However, this does not make them meat-eaters, and arguing that it does is simply another non-sequitur.

A survey of the Sanskrit literature reveals that at least two reasons are offered to justify a prescribed animal sacrifice in previous ages. Lest anyone is unclear on the point, these reasons apply only to sacrifices prescribed in the Vedas, and not to other animal sacrifices.

Reason #1: (not applicable to Shrii Raama) To regulate meat-eating in those who are addicted to it. The rationale is that if one must perform a very elaborate sacrifice to consume animal flesh, then the required performance of sacrifice will minimize the number of animals who will be slain to satisfy that person's appetite, and even discourage the practice completely. A common analogy to explain this point is as follows: if you are going to shoot yourself, it is better to shoot yourself in the foot rather than in the head. However, it is even better not to shoot yourself at all. Similarly, if one is going to consume animal flesh and thus derive the undesireable karma as a result, it is better to minimize it. But it is still best to avoid it completely.

This line of reasoning finds support in the Bhaagavata Puraana, Vyaasa's magnum opus and final word on Vedaanta:

vadanti te'nyonyamupaasitastriyo gR^iheShu maithunyapareShu chaashiShaH |
yajantyasR^iShTaannavidhaanadakShiNa.m vR^ittyai para.m ghnanti pashuunatadvidaH || bhaa 11.5.8 ||

The materialistic followers of Vedic rituals, giving up the worship of the Lord, instead practically worship their wives, and thus their homes become dedicated to sex life. Such materialistic householders encourage one another in such whimsical behavior. Understanding ritualistic sacrifice as a necessary item for bodily maintenance, they perform unauthorized ceremonies in which there is no distribution of foodstuffs or charity to the braahmanas and other respectable persons. Instead, they cruelly slaughter animals such as goats without any understanding of the dark consequences of their activities (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.8).

loke vyavaayaamiShamadyasevaa nityaa hi jantorna hi tatra chodanaa |
vyavasthitisteShu vivaahayaj~na suraagrahairaasu nivR^ittiriShtaa || bhaa 11.5.11 ||

In this material world the conditioned soul is always inclined to sex, meat-eating and intoxication. Therefore religious scriptures never actually encourage such activities. Although the scriptural injunctions provide for sex through sacred marriage, for meat-eating through sacrifical offerings and for intoxication through the acceptance of ritual cups of wine, such ceremonies are meant for the ultimate purpose of renunciation (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.11).

yad ghraaNabhakSho vihitaH suraayaastathaa pashoraalabhana.m na hi.msaa |
eva.m vyavaayaH prajayaa na ratyaa ima.m vishuddha.m na viduH svadharmam || bhaa 11.5.13 ||

According to the Vedic injunctions, when wine is offered in sacrifical ceremonies it is later to be consumed by smelling, and not by drinking. Similarly, the sacrificial offering of animals is permitted, but there is not provision for wide-scale animal slaughter. Religious sex life is also permitted, but only in marriage for begetting children, and not for sensuous exploitation of the body. Unfortunately, however, the less intelligent materialists cannot understand that their duties in life should be performed purely on the spiritual platform (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.13).

ye tvaneva.mvido'santaH stabdhaaH sadabhimaaninaH |
pashuun druhyanti vishrabdhaaH pretya khaadanti te cha taan || bhaa 11.5.14 ||

Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.14).

Note that the above does not apply to the ashva-medha yagna, since horse meat was not consumed as a matter of habit. Rather, the rationale for performing the horse sacrifice brings us to the next point:

Reason #2: (which is more applicable to Shrii Raama) Animals sacrificed in a prescribed yagna by properly situated brahmins attained a higher birth in their next life.

Again, a review of the relevant literature also substantiates this point:

Manu Smriti 5th adhyaaya, 42nd shloka

eShvartheShu pashuun hi.msan vedatattvarthavid dvijaH |
aatmaana.m cha pashu.m chaiva gamayatyuttama.m gatim || MS 5.42 ||

A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state (manu-smR^iti 5.42)

It is interesting to note here the qualifications placed upon such a sacrifice. The person doing the sacrifice must be a dvija, or a twice-born individual, meaning that he must be "born again" into spiritual life. Furthermore, he must be a true knower of the Vedas as also mentioned above. These qualifications clearly preclude the possibility of having such titles as a matter of formality or heredity; Manu speaks of individuals who have such qualification in fact.

Nevertheless, Manu concludes that meat-eating is to be renounced:

samutpatti.m cha maa.msasya vadhabandhau cha dehinaam |
prasamiikShya nivarteta sarvamaa.msasya bhakShaNaat || MS 5.49 ||

Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh (manu-smR^iti 5.49).

This statement occurs after Manu has in many ways extolled the virtues of properly performed Vedic animal sacrifices. In spite of this, Manu-smriti is clear that vegetarianism is still preferable. And Lord Raama, being the ideal king, would act in such a way as to practice the ideals so that others would follow. Such a precedent (about behaving in such a way that common men will follow) is also established by Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-giitaa.

In light of this, and the multiple other pieces of evidence in which Lord Raama states that He will not eat meat even in spite of being a forest-dweller, we can reasonably conclude that Lord Raama was a vegetarian, and that He would want all of us to follow His example.

"Rama is a great ruler, divine figure and national idea and he did kill animals for food and large number of people in war. Associating Rama with vegetarianism and ahmisa is saying Lions eat grass."

Unfortunately, the bravado with which you make the above statement is unmatched by any supporting evidence. Furthermore, while claiming that Raama is a meat-eater, you have completely neglected to comment on the multiple verses quoted from the Raamaayana in my original posting in which He explicitly states that He will eat only roots, twigs, fruits, etc in the forest. For your position to be correct, you must respond on a point-by-point basis to each specific piece of evidence quoted. Thus far you have not done so.

A critical analysis of the primary evidence discloses only supporting evidence for Raama's vegetarianism, and demonstrates that your objections are nothing more than hearsay as are the conclusions based on them.

I strongly encourage you to refer to the original Raamaayana before you make any claims about what Lord Raama did or did not do. You really cannot appreciate the depth of the Raamaayana by learning from second- and third-hand sources. Only by referring to the original Sanskrit will misconceptions such as these be cleared up. There are many verse-by-verse Sanskrit-to-English translations of the Raamaayana available, both in print and on the internet. I myself use the nonsectarian translation of the Gita Press. Please consider doing the same so that you do not inadvertently misrepresent the Raamaayana to innocent lay Hindus and non-Hindus.

warm regards,

- K

--------------------
H. Krishna Susarla M.D.
Achintya Mailing List
www.achintya.org

Post Extras: