Please accept my humble obeisances.All glories to Srila Prabhupada, Guru, & Gauranga.Hare KrishnaI have heard that Lord Ramachandra ate meat in His lila.Please explain how this is authoritative/acceptable?Please forgive me if I have committed offense in asking this.Hari bolYour low servant,Bhakta David
You need to be a member of ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT to add comments!
If we read the actual text of the Valmiki Ramayana, there are several spots where Rama does seem to eat meat (mamsa in Sanskrit). These translations are identical in every other text of the Valmiki Ramayana I have seen.
I feel like we should take the sacred text of Ramayana as it is, and not try to interpret it and mental speculate too much to make Valmiki's words fit our narrative.
I've included the links to the actual Ramayana verse with Sanskrit.
Famished, they (Rama and Lakshmana) killed a boar, a rishya (whitefooted male antelope), a spotted deer and a great deer with black stripes. They partook the meat and reached a tree by evening where they rested for the night.
--- The Sanskrit checks out, and the same verse is consistent in several other translations I've checked. Rama and Lakshmana are described as "bubhikshitou", which means hungry, and they take (aadaya) the meat after killing (hatvaa) the animals.
There are a few points that I would like to raise & clarifications to make.
1. the version of Ramayana that you are referring to, is one translated & hosted by IIT who can hardly be classified & devotees. Prabhupada, & Lord Chaitanya have been very specific about what happens when scriptures have been heard from non devotees. "it is equivalent to committing spiritual suicide"
2. The valmiki Ramayana from Gita Press Gorakhpur is the only version of Ramayana which has been approved by Prabhupada for reading by devotees
3. Valmiki Ramayana from Gita press has translated these verses differently. Here it says that they hunted for sport, & collected fruits etc to be offerd for sacrifice, but it does not say that they ate the meat that they hunted.
4. By birth & practice being Kshatriyas, they are allowed to hunt animals for sport & even though they followed the asetic way of life, they were nonetheless Kshatriyas.
I have given below, the links to the online copies of Gita press version, you can see for yourself. In fact it does not say anywhere at all in these books that they ate meat
Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki’s Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana or Sita ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating meat. The evidence for this is as follows:
The verse that comes in question in this regard in the Valmiki Ramayana, Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.”
The literal translation of this verse is: “Sri Rama does not take meat or honey. He partakes everyday of wild fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully sanctioned (for an ascetic) in the evening.”
Faulty English translations have put it as something like this: Hanuman to Sita, “When you were away, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat.” This incorrectly implies that Rama normally may have ate meat but did not do so while Sita was away from Him.
Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte is a verb that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you say Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte”, it gives a complete negative connotation, meaning that Lord Rama abhorred meat-eating. On the other hand, if the words were “Na mamsam Raghavo khadate”, it could then mean that Raghava may have engaged in meat eating before, but had stopped it at this point. However, this is not what is said, but is where some English translations present a similar confusion, or are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by analyzing the correct view of the proper translation, it indicates clearly that the Valmiki Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it.
SATYANARAYAN > Divyanshu PandeyNovember 30, 2011 at 5:02pm
Hare Krishna,
very nice explanation Divyanshu Prabhu.Our strong faith on our role-models further gets energy by such explanaion.
Replies
don't harm the innocent protect them, He never eat Cow for that reason!
only cows are innocent servents of others. He did not eat Cow!
Hare Krishna,
If we read the actual text of the Valmiki Ramayana, there are several spots where Rama does seem to eat meat (mamsa in Sanskrit). These translations are identical in every other text of the Valmiki Ramayana I have seen.
I feel like we should take the sacred text of Ramayana as it is, and not try to interpret it and mental speculate too much to make Valmiki's words fit our narrative.
I've included the links to the actual Ramayana verse with Sanskrit.
Ayodhyakanda, Sarga 52, Verse 102
https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_...
Famished, they (Rama and Lakshmana) killed a boar, a rishya (whitefooted male antelope), a spotted deer and a great deer with black stripes. They partook the meat and reached a tree by evening where they rested for the night.
--- The Sanskrit checks out, and the same verse is consistent in several other translations I've checked. Rama and Lakshmana are described as "bubhikshitou", which means hungry, and they take (aadaya) the meat after killing (hatvaa) the animals.
Aranyakanda, Sarga 44, Verse 27
https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_...
Then Rama killed another deer, collected the venison and hastened to Janasthana.
This translation is quite indisputable. Rama kills (nihatya) a deer, and then takes (aadaya) its meat (mamsa).
This evidence seems pretty conclusive, but I'd like to hear how we devotees can contextualize this.
Your servant
Hare Krishna,
There are a few points that I would like to raise & clarifications to make.
1. the version of Ramayana that you are referring to, is one translated & hosted by IIT who can hardly be classified & devotees. Prabhupada, & Lord Chaitanya have been very specific about what happens when scriptures have been heard from non devotees. "it is equivalent to committing spiritual suicide"
2. The valmiki Ramayana from Gita Press Gorakhpur is the only version of Ramayana which has been approved by Prabhupada for reading by devotees
3. Valmiki Ramayana from Gita press has translated these verses differently. Here it says that they hunted for sport, & collected fruits etc to be offerd for sacrifice, but it does not say that they ate the meat that they hunted.
4. By birth & practice being Kshatriyas, they are allowed to hunt animals for sport & even though they followed the asetic way of life, they were nonetheless Kshatriyas.
I have given below, the links to the online copies of Gita press version, you can see for yourself. In fact it does not say anywhere at all in these books that they ate meat
https://archive.org/details/RmEH_srimad-valmiki-ramayana-with-sansk...
https://archive.org/details/RmEH_srimad-valmiki-ramayana-with-sansk...
https://archive.org/details/RmEH_srimad-valmiki-ramayana-with-sansk...
https://archive.org/details/RmEH_srimad-valmiki-ramayana-with-sansk...
Lord ramchandra is lord vishnu who is satvik has divine satvik qualities he can never eat meat
Why are these Doctors making so many offenses on themselves by critiquing the Supreme Lord?!
We must be well equipt with sastra.
Thank you so much for these great Vedic explanations.
You are an ocean of mercy.
Hari bol
Your servant
Bhakta David
Sometimes the idea comes up that the Ramayana indicates that Lord Rama ate meat, especially while He was in exile in the woods. However, there is no verse in Valmiki’s Ramayana that establishes that Lord Rama, Lakshmana or Sita ate meat while in or even out of exile. In fact, it seems to show that He very much disliked the notion of eating meat. The evidence for this is as follows:
The verse that comes in question in this regard in the Valmiki Ramayana, Sundarakanda, Skanda 36, Sloka 41, says: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.”
The literal translation of this verse is: “Sri Rama does not take meat or honey. He partakes everyday of wild fruits and boiled (wild) rice fully sanctioned (for an ascetic) in the evening.”
Faulty English translations have put it as something like this: Hanuman to Sita, “When you were away, Sri Rama did not even take deer meat.” This incorrectly implies that Rama normally may have ate meat but did not do so while Sita was away from Him.
Now in this verse, the Sanskrit word bhunkte is a verb that means strong desire for eating. It comes from the Sanskrit bhaksha, which means voracious eating. When you say Na bhunkte, as we see in the line that says “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte”, it gives a complete negative connotation, meaning that Lord Rama abhorred meat-eating. On the other hand, if the words were “Na mamsam Raghavo khadate”, it could then mean that Raghava may have engaged in meat eating before, but had stopped it at this point. However, this is not what is said, but is where some English translations present a similar confusion, or are simply unclear about this issue. Nonetheless, by analyzing the correct view of the proper translation, it indicates clearly that the Valmiki Ramayana shows how Lord Rama not only did not eat meat, but greatly disliked it.
Hare Krishna,
very nice explanation Divyanshu Prabhu.Our strong faith on our role-models further gets energy by such explanaion.
Hari bol,
satyanarayan
Thanks.
Hare Krishna
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next