tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post5605570494018086507..comments2024-03-18T22:56:06.696+05:30Comments on Jayasree Saranathan: Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part-1)Jayasree Saranathan http://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-46019444411554914742015-12-02T21:45:36.286+05:302015-12-02T21:45:36.286+05:30First of all, Ms. Jayashree lost all credibility w...First of all, Ms. Jayashree lost all credibility when she couldn't defend her conclusion she reached in the above post on Does Sanatana Dharma permit eating meat and had to rope in a Mr. Ramanathan to do the talking instead of her. He ended up proving her wrong, while also providing his own personal opinion that he prefers to abstain from eating meat. <br /><br />Now, Ms. Jayashree wishes to launch a tirade on valmiki Ramayana and clearly demonstrated how much effort she puts into her disagreement on the straight forward meaning of the two words 'Cherathu Yamunaavane' in the context of that sloka. Anyone who read Valmiki Ramayana Sanskrit version knows Rama ate meat & so did Agastya. Ms. Jayashree's ego & half-baked knowledge prevents her from taking Valmiki literally here. Proof of her ill-understanding of Valmiki Ramayana is 1) her refusal to take meaning of the Sanskrit words written by Valmiki, and 2) the difficulty she imposes on herself to just reiterate what Rama told Kausalya, what he & Sita and Lakshmana discussed etc. then coming up with her analyses on what COULD they have meant and 3) then her coming up with her INTERPRETATIONS of what the two words from rama COULD HAVE MEANT instead of taking their straght forward meaning, and finally 4) because she confuses English word 'Lie' with Sanskrit word 'Satya'. There are not one & the same. Yes a-satya is a sin in Sanatana Dharma, but Rama did not commit asatya in Valmiki Ramayana (ask me why & I shall be glad to educate you since you are clearly in desperate need of it!!)<br /><br />Of course, she also attacked me that I am falsifying what Valmiki wrote. Let's see, who is taking Valmiki's words literally without coming up with 'COULD HAVE's and interpretations? Me. Who is going to great lengths in telling us about what Rama 'COULD HAVE MEANT' by his words and dumping on rest of us her INTERPRETATIONS of not just the sloka but the context also? Ms. Jayashree. It is clear who is trying their best to falsify in the worst possible way and abhodably so what Valmiki explained with his words here!! Valmiki clearly explained how Lakshmana cooked meat also. <br /><br />The bottom-line is – if one does not want to eat meat, it is their choice. But let them not bring in Rama or Vedic texts to justify their meat-abstaining habit. Valmiki clearly stated that Rama at meat. Rama clearly explains why he was offering ingudi pindam for Dasharatha in Valmiki Ramayana instead of other foods. Rama also clearly explains to Lakshmana meat eating habits of Agastya, who pretty much is dhamra personified also! There is Dharma within Dharma in many a context in life. That parama Dharma or core Dharma as Ahimsa has already been disproved by me above, clearly for which Ms. Jayashree had no answer. 'Dharma Himsa Thathaiva cha'! There IS himsa in adherence to vedic dharma, and ONLY a fool would claim that ahimsa is parama dharma. Ahimsa springs from compassion or kindness or mercy. This is the Dharma of Rama also, but just a part of his larger Kshaatra dharma, wherein committing himsa as punishment of evil by killing them (Rakshaasas or Vaali) has a much greater role! <br /><br />At the end, it is clear Ms. Jayashree will go to any lengths, such as twisting and turning what could have been straight forward meaning of words in slokas, just to prove her own interpretation to be the only true meaning, because she has a mental block towards meat eating, that's all. However, given she couldn't either defend her conclusion in her blog post above or in her repeated redundant falsity that ahimsa is parama dharma, her blog posts shouldn't be given importance and read by educated and the wise.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-91901264013126837012015-12-02T21:43:32.650+05:302015-12-02T21:43:32.650+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-83050682990935267672015-12-02T21:05:00.920+05:302015-12-02T21:05:00.920+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-56757559666132668432015-12-01T02:58:17.985+05:302015-12-01T02:58:17.985+05:30I will be writing on all the controversial verses ...I will be writing on all the controversial verses on meat eating in Valmiki Ramayana, in the course of this series on merits of abstention from meat. <br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-63094241902960045102015-12-01T02:57:59.112+05:302015-12-01T02:57:59.112+05:30The bottom-line is – if one wants to eat meat, it ...The bottom-line is – if one wants to eat meat, it is their choice. But let them not bring in Rama or Vedic texts to justify their meat eating habit. There is Dharma within Dharma in many a context in life. That parama Dharma or core Dharma is Ahimsa. Ahimsa springs from compassion or kindness or mercy. This is the Dharma of Rama also. <br /><br />Sita expresses this to Hanuman in Sundara khandam. She says आनृशंस्यम् परो धर्मः (Kindness is the supreme Dharma) त्वत्त एव मया श्रुतः (this was heard by me from Rama) (5-38-41).<br /><br />Rama once expressed to Sita that kindness to others is his supreme Dharma. He is one who cannot bear the sufferings of others. (para- dhukkam sahiyaamai). Is that mercy only for others and not for herself, asks Sita to Hanuman. This mercy and compassion is the core attribute of Paramatman. Based on this only the verse Vaishnava janato thene kahiye, je peedu paraayi jane re – was formed. <br /><br />It is because Paramatman is compassionate He is showing up to Mr Jay the karmic connection behind the numerous dead birds falling in his place – that one who is in the path of spirituality should shun any suffering to any beings. The numerous lives that found their graveyard in his stomach were screaming for mercy by falling down in his courtyard as a reminder. If he fails to read the Karmic message of this indication by Kala Purusha, he may not get another chance to get reminded and do the course correction. <br /><br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-91353430621316190862015-12-01T02:56:41.185+05:302015-12-01T02:56:41.185+05:30Again Sita reiterates this in the next verse by sa...Again Sita reiterates this in the next verse by saying, "Enjoying the flowers and fruits belonging to various seasons there, I shall neither recollect my mother nor father nor my home."<br /><br />This shows that they have to eat different kinds of fruits available in different seasons.<br />This kind of talk about the food in exile continues as we can see Lakshmana telling Rama that he will walk in the front with his bow and arrow and a spade and a basket to collect tubers, fruits and other things (phalaani, muulaani anyaanicha). If they were to eat meat also, Lakshmana could have as well told that he would hunt the animals with his bow and bring its meat to Rama for eating. He had never mentioned that. And they were never supposed to eat meat during their stay in the forest. In that scenario, the verse 2-55-33 on Cherathu Yamunaavane cannot refer to eating meat of the deer they had killed but it could refer to the munching of the fruits that Sita collected on the way. <br /><br />{The hunting of sacred deer has its obvious purpose – of procuring deer skin for wrapping them. Dress of deer skin is what Kaikeyi insisted in verses 2-18-37, 2-19-2 and 2-19-4. <br />In 2-22-13, Rama repeats this wish of Kaikeyi to Lakshmana by telling that Kaikeyi will be mentally happy (manassukham) if he lives in the forest draped with deer skin (chiiraajina dhare )}<br /><br /><br />Lakshmana continues to tell Rama, “Taking my bow and arrows and carrying a spade and a basket, I will walk in front of you showing the path." (2-31-23)<br /><br />"I will procure for you for all time the tubers, fruits and other things which are good food stuffs available in the forest for sages." (2-31-24).<br /><br />Even Dasharatha wanted to send his granary to Rama on his exile (Dhaanyakosha)<br />"Let the granary and the treasury belonging to me be sent to Rama residing in the uninhabited forest." (2-36-7). Why should he send grains if Rama can be at ease with eating the flesh of the animals in the forest?<br /><br />That Rama was made to live as an ascetic is again made out by Valmiki in chapter 2-73-3 when Bharata admonishes his mother by telling that she made Dasharatha die and Rama to live as an ascetic. <br /><br />Even in the shraddham or offering of libations to Dasharatha, Rama offered food balls made of Ingudi pulp and Badari pulp prepared by Sita. There was no meat in that offering. Ingudi and Badari fruits were available in their surroundings, so also the sacred deer. If offering meat in shraddham was in practice, Rama could have asked Laskhmna to fetch a deer and Sita to cook it. He didn’t do so But he asked Lakshmana to do that in verse 2-56-22 for offering in a purifactory ceremony and not for filling their stomach.<br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-13614812467024217262015-12-01T02:55:24.767+05:302015-12-01T02:55:24.767+05:30Not to be behind them is Sita who also promises to...Not to be behind them is Sita who also promises to live on fruits and tubers of the forest. “I shall live only on roots and fruits always, no doubt”. (2-27-15) <br /><br />Rama tries to desist her from following him to the forest by telling about the kind of food they will have to eat in the forest. It is not meat but the fruits fallen from the trees; as ascetics they cannot even pluck the fruits and eat. (phalai vrukshaavapathithai) “"Oh, Sita! With mind disciplined day and night, one has to necessarily satisfy oneself with fruits fallen from trees. Hence, living in a forest is a suffering." अहोरात्रम् च सन्तोषः कर्तव्यो नियतात्मना |<br />फलैर्वृक्षावपतितैः सीते दुःखमतो वनम् || (2-28-12)<br /><br />Rama further goes on to say how there will be paucity of even these fruits (edible fruits fallen from trees) when he says "Oh, Sita the princess of Mithila! Fasting is to be done according to one's stamina. Clothes of bark are to be worn and mass of matted hair has to be worn on the head." (2-28-13).<br /><br />Why does he say, fasting according to one’s stamina? Depending on the availability of food (fallen fruits), the one who can withstand hunger can take less and leave out the rest to the hungrier one. They did not intend to satisfy their hunger by killing a deer and eating it. Their vanvaas was a period of tapas. By sending Rama to the forest, Kaikeyi wanted them to starve and eat astringent fruits that have fallen from trees. In that scenario, there is absolutely no scope for eating meat. <br /><br />Sita readily accepts to these conditions of vanvaas when she says, "Leaves, tubers and fruits either a little or abundant in quantity brought and given by you yourself will be like nectar to me." (2-30-15)<br /><br />पत्रम् मूलम् फलम् यत् त्वम् अल्पम् वा यदि वा बहु |<br />दास्यसि स्वयम् आहृत्य तन् मे अमृत रस उपमम् || २-३०-१५<br /><br />15. yat = which; patram = leaf; muulam = tuber; phalam = fruit; alpam vaa = either a little; yadivaa = or; bahu = abundant; aahR^itya = brought; daasyasi = given by; tvam = you; svayam = yourself; tat = that; bhavet = will be; amR^itarasopamam = like nectar; me = to me.<br /><br />Where is talk of meat here? <br /><br />(continued)Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-21942384410851987982015-12-01T02:55:02.997+05:302015-12-01T02:55:02.997+05:30Let us see the other verses from Valmiki on how th...Let us see the other verses from Valmiki on how there were stronger indications on vegetarian food taken by Rama during his vanvaas. <br /><br />The very idea behind Kaikeyi asking Rama to go to forest is to make him live as an ascetic by wearing deer skin and barks and subsisting on fruits and tubers (the purpose of hunting deer is known from this verse in 2-11-26). In that verse, she expresses her condition that "Rama has to take refuge in the forest of Dandaka for fourteen years and let him become an ascetic wearing rags, deer skin and matted hair".<br /><br />On hearing this from Kaikeyi, Dasharatha lamets how Rama can survive on ‘vanyam aahaaram” that constitutes ‘astringent bitter and pungent wild foods?’ “कषायाणि तिक्तानि कटुकानि च भक्षयन्वन्यमाहारम्” (2-12-99). Meat of deer or some animal is not the vanyam aahaaram mentioned here.<br /><br />Kaikeyi wanted Rama to be a wanderer, an ascetic wearing deer skin and subsisting on the food got from the trees and plants of the forest. Rama accepts this and expresses this not once but twice to his mother while taking leave of her. After telling “hitvaa aamisham” (not taking meat) in verse 2-20-29, he again repeats it in 31st verse “"I have to satisfy with the things existing in the forest and subsist with roots and fruits in a solitary forest for fourteen years." (Vanyaani phala moolau)<br /><br />स ष्ट्चाअष्टौ च वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने |<br />आसेवमानो वन्यानि फलमूलैश्च चर्तयन् (2-20-29)<br /><br />He further proceeds to tells this vow to Lakshmana that all the pots of water kept for his coronation has to be used for his bath to take up the vow of asceticism (tapasye Vratha snaanam) (2-22-27). A tapasvi or a Muni is one who desists from meat is what Yudhistira also says in chapter 115 of Anusasana parva of MB (“These righteous men who, from the time of birth, abstain from honey and meat and wine, are regarded as Munis”)<br /><br />The same idea of what Rama has to eat in the forest is echoed by Kausalya. She asks, “While the dependants and the servants of Lord Rama eat pleasant foods all the while, how can he eat roots and fruits himself in the forest ?" (“Bhokshayate Muula phalaani” 2-24- 3)<br />In return Rama tells his mother to subsist on “niyataahaara” – temperate food during his absence. (2-24-29). So the son and the mother decided to live on lean food of a tapaswi during the exile period.<br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-10555274902903682752015-12-01T02:52:12.131+05:302015-12-01T02:52:12.131+05:30The only falsity, the worst kind of falsity and th...The only falsity, the worst kind of falsity and the abhorable falsity in the entire discussion above is the claim by Mr Jay Sekhar that Rama ate meat during exile according to Valmiki Ramayana. If he believes in Valmiki’s words, he must accept what Valmiki wrote in many verses at the time of exile when Rama promised to avoid meat during exile. <br /><br />At the time of taking leave of his mother Kausalya, Rama makes this statement that he will live like a Muni “leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey.” In verse 2-20-29, he says,<br /><br />चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने |<br />मधु मूल फलैः जीवन् हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् ||<br />vatsyaami = I shall live <br />vane = in forest; <br />vijane = bereft of people<br /> munivat = like sage <br />chaturdasha = fourteen <br />varshhaaNi = years <br />hitvaa = leaving off <br />aamishham = meat; <br />jiivan = living <br />madhu muulaphalaiH = with honey; roots and fruits.<br /><br />Meaning:- "I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey"<br /><br />There is clear mention of “Hitvaa Munivad Aamisham”<br />Like Munis, leaving off meat.<br /><br />Rama is one who never says anything twice. RAmo Dwir na abhi bhashathe. (Rama tells this quality of himself to Kaikeyi to make her spell out the boons she had just then asked from Dasharatha - chapter 2-18-30). It means that if Rama says something, that is final; there is no going back. This vachan of Rama is the core of many a teaching of Purvacharyas to show how one will be protected by Rama if one takes refuge in him. Rama will never go back on his word. <br /><br />Such a Rama who has told his mother that he will abstain from meat during vanvaas, cannot go back on his word. Rama is a Satyavaan – a quality that is told as foremost by Dasharatha in the conversation with Kaikeyi that preceded the event of Kaikeyi asking those dreadful boons. If there are passages contradictory to this promise, one must apply one’s mind to untangle the contradiction in tune with this promise that Rama had made. If as Mr Jay thinks that Rama ate meat during exile, that goes against what Valmiki had written earlier in his kavya; this goes against the very characterisation of Rama – that of a Satyavaan, an adherer to his word. <br /><br />(continued)Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-71725813930609970912015-11-30T06:37:59.480+05:302015-11-30T06:37:59.480+05:30@Mr. Ramanathan - //So though i agree with you tha...@Mr. Ramanathan - //So though i agree with you that there is no blanket prohibition in our shastras regarding eating meat// & //Even i cannot eat it. Though i have eaten it in Yajna's, as a prasadam.// ---- I agree with you. <br /><br />//So what i feel is in effect my argument and Mrs Jayashree's argument though are different in terms of shastraic interpretation, the results is one.// --- No, her argument and the point she is making with her posts is that Sanatana Dharma does not permit meat eating, which you as well as I as well as 'Unknown' disagree with. So, the result is not the same.<br /><br />//I dont think Mrs Jayashree is doing any dis-service. // ---- yes, she is, because unlike you or unlike 'Unknown', she is not discussing what truly Sanatana Dharma shaastras say about meat eating. She is posting only those vedic scripture verses which push her agenda on abstaining from meat eating. If she were to state your acknowledgement on meat eating in vedic scriptures or 'Unknown's' acknowledge on permission to eat meat in vedic scriptures, then I shall agree with you that she is not doing dis-service by these posts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-27984719168354357672015-11-30T06:37:37.922+05:302015-11-30T06:37:37.922+05:30@Unknown - Yes, the post is about, as you quoted t...@Unknown - Yes, the post is about, as you quoted the title, 'Does Sanatana Dharma support eating meat?'. As you yourself acknowledged // As far as I understood all of these and the counter-arguments posed, Does it permit? - yes, with conditions. Does it support? - In specific circumstances and with strict conditions.// ----- This is not what Ms. Jayashree is concluding. Her point is the opposite! Secondly, there is no concept or context called or explained as 'MahaJana' in Sanatana Dharma. So your commentary on acceptance of or by MahaJana is irrelevant and not applicable in Sanatana Dharma. At a minimum, Ms. JayaShree needs to state at least your conclusions, which I copied and pasted above, in her post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-72306149997010773602015-11-29T18:22:06.334+05:302015-11-29T18:22:06.334+05:30Mr Jay Sekhar,
I dont think Mrs Jayashree is doing...Mr Jay Sekhar,<br />I dont think Mrs Jayashree is doing any dis-service. She state's her opinion based on her studies. The point is today's Hinduism is mainly Puranic in nature. Today's overwhelming general opinion would be that "Sanatana dharma does not support meat eating". This is based mainly on the puranic statements on Yajnas, like those found in the Bhagavata that be-little them. Very few people go deep into the Vedas and shastras. Very few still know people who perform such Yajnas. <br /><br />Even many ghanapatis today wont accept it today. So though i agree with you that there is no blanket prohibition in our shastras regarding eating meat. It is not feasible for 99% of Brahamanas. So what i feel is in effect my argument and Mrs Jayashree's argument though are different in terms of shastraic interpretation, the results is one. Even i cannot eat it. Though i have eaten it in Yajna's, as a prasadam. But i think in the light of today's situation better avoid it is my ideaR.Ramanathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842378468616200619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-53380090837434632082015-11-29T08:19:12.858+05:302015-11-29T08:19:12.858+05:30@Jay Sekhar - I read the subject post, the title o...@Jay Sekhar - I read the subject post, the title of which is "Does Sanatana Dharma support eating meat?" The question is, does it "support", not "permit", eating meat. Smt. Jayasree's arguments and the supporting evidence she has placed are lucid. There is nothing in Sri. Ramanathan's comments that are contradictory to what she has stated. As far as I understood all of these and the counter-arguments posed, Does it permit? - yes, with conditions. Does it support? - In specific circumstances and with strict conditions. The reason for me quoting the sloka from MB, is in situations such as these, follow the precedent/path set by MahaJana. They are able to show unbiased and time-relevant (kali age) application of scriptures. In your case, if your MahaJana have shown you the path that supports eating meat, please to your heart's content. In our case, MahaJana quoted by Smt. Jayasree and Sri. Ramanathan are clearly showing us a path otherwise.Badhri https://www.blogger.com/profile/09913463732259613282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-42892015513846659292015-11-29T04:38:45.975+05:302015-11-29T04:38:45.975+05:30@Unknown - you posted about a sanskrit sloka, and ...@Unknown - you posted about a sanskrit sloka, and ended up proving a concept unrelated to either Ms. Jayashree's post or about the discussions she & I had thereafter in these comments.<br /><br />Then you state that Ms. Jayashree's service by sharing her false ideas/misconceptions is well serving the multitude of truth seekers. As you have seen above, Ms. Jayashree was wrong about her argument that Sanatana Dharma permits meat eating. Mr. Ramanathan's comments should be read by you to understand the mistakes she made in arriving at her false conclusions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-63010368779036707962015-11-29T04:37:56.098+05:302015-11-29T04:37:56.098+05:30@R.Ramanathan - //Yes but 2 points. 1. After the A...@R.Ramanathan - //Yes but 2 points. 1. After the Agastya/vatapai-ilvala incident, i think Agastya himself prohibited meat in shraddha.// ---- No, not true. Per Valmiki Ramayana, In the sarga following where Vatapi & Ilvala history was mentioned, Agastya does feed Rama et all with fruits & tubers since that was all he had in his ashram at that time. But there is no mention of Agastya discussing meat eating or veg food with Rama et all. If you have seen a sloka from valmiki ramayana wherein your thought is mentioned, then do provide.<br /><br />Your point # 2. is explaining why brahmins don't eat meat today, especially in a Shraddha ceremony, but does not contest the fact that our vedic scriptures permit meat eating. I do not disagree with you here. <br /><br />Finally, you asked about me - Go Brahmaneeybha-ha Shubham Bahavatu! Haritasa, Ambrariisha Yuvanaashva Triya Rusha Pravaraanvita, Aapastambha-Sutra Krishna Yajur-shaka Adhyaayii, Sriman Haritasa Gotrasya Vijaya RaviSekhara Sharma Ahambho Abhi vadayee.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-38982924262701731792015-11-28T19:14:03.933+05:302015-11-28T19:14:03.933+05:30I have heard in many discourses by highly qualifie...I have heard in many discourses by highly qualified authorities on our Sastras and Sanatana Dharma, the following sloka or excerpts from this.<br /><br />tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā<br />nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam<br />dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ<br />mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ<br /><br />Mahābhārata, Vana-parva (313.117)<br /><br />Synonyms<br />tarkaḥ—dry argument; apratiṣṭhaḥ—not fixed; śrutayaḥ—Vedas; vibhinnāḥ—possessing different departments; na—not; asau—that; ṛṣiḥ—great sage; yasya—whose; matam—opinion; na—not; bhinnam—separate; dharmasya—of religious principles; tattvam—truth; nihitam—placed; guhāyām—in the heart of a realized person; mahā-janaḥ—self-realized predecessors; yena—by which way; gataḥ—acted; saḥ—that; panthāḥ—the pure, unadulterated path.<br /><br />I will leave the interpretation of the above sloka to the esteemed readers of this blog. Mukkur Sri Lakshminarasimhachariar used an example often in his discourses to point this out. There is seemingly an apparent contradiction between two verses in our Sastras. In one place, it states "Jaamaataa Vishnuvat Poojyaaha" (1) and in an other place, it states, "Jaamaataa Dasamo Grahaha" (2). As you can see, it is saying praise/worship, like Vishnu, the son-in-law (1), and in an other (2), it intimates that as if it is not enough that we have nine planets (and their effects to deal with), we have a tenth one here in the form of this son-in-law. According to Mukkur's discourse, this apparant contradiction was presented to one of the previous pontiffs of Sri Ahobila Mutt, who was once asked whether a son-in-law whose behavior is not befitting of praise should also be praised based on (1). The response was, by mere translation and interpretation of the words, the true spirit (the underlying truth) is not clearly revealed here. The meaning of "Jaamaataa Vishnuvat Poojyaaha" should be understood as "Jaamaataa Vishnuvat Sthitaaha Poojyaaha". Now the purport of the verse is clear with the word he added - Sthitaaha (i.e. As long as the son-in-law conducts himself with praise-worthy behavior, like Vishnu, he is worthy of praise). <br /><br />Dear Sri R. Ramanathan and Smt. Jayasree:<br />The yeoman service you are doing by sharing your breadth of knowledge, research, and perspectives are well serving the multitude of true seekers. My pranams.Badhri https://www.blogger.com/profile/09913463732259613282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-17526439706707417202015-11-28T11:42:55.299+05:302015-11-28T11:42:55.299+05:30By the way Jay Sekhar could you give me some intro...By the way Jay Sekhar could you give me some intro about yourself and where are you now and what are you working as?R.Ramanathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842378468616200619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-9027709333107525362015-11-28T11:37:20.430+05:302015-11-28T11:37:20.430+05:30//My only thing against meat eating is, that there...//My only thing against meat eating is, that there is no proper dharmic source as of today.....// /*----- you are mistaken, there is Valmiki Ramayana and then there is Shraadha ceremony, wherein the meat pinda has to be offered and Brahmans have to eat meat to their hearts' content! Yudhristhra confirms this in Vyasa MB, and Agastya confirms this in Valmiki Ramayana.*/<br /><br />Yes but 2 points.<br />1. After the Agastya/vatapai-ilvala incident, i think Agastya himself prohibited meat in shraddha.<br /><br />2. Even if we consider that the Itihasa/purana pramana's as not effective, as per the Dharma/grihya sutras, when inviting Brahmanas for eating in the shraddha they have to question them regarding their vedic knowledge, lineage etc. I bet most of the brahmanins that come today for eating are people who have retired and are looking for some income after retirement. They cannot utter basic mantras with svara properly. So feeding meat to such unqualified people can result in shraddha bhanga. And most fundamental of all, the shraddha has to be performed in the Grhiya agni where the daily aupasana is done. This is absent in most of the houses today. Of course there are exceptions. But on the whole it is true for 99% of the brahmanas. Most marriages are not performed as per the Ekagni kanda where all the rites necessary for aupasana are done. But when the grihasta does shraddha, vichana agni anusandhana is done on the day without the previous rites being done in marriage, which is of course not right. I am not sure in the present conditions where grihastas rely on the priest to even tell them how to do aachamana, whether it is safe to use meat because they do not know the purification mantras. From these aspects i feel for majority of the people meat in shraddha is not good. Also the puranas forbid it kali. R.Ramanathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842378468616200619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-80272037835110633502015-11-28T08:42:25.875+05:302015-11-28T08:42:25.875+05:30@R.Ramanathan - I was very pleased/happy to see yo...@R.Ramanathan - I was very pleased/happy to see your reply. I, of course, am taking what you said about yourself for face value. Your response, at least proved to Ms. Jayashree that she was incorrect in making these posts falsely influencing her readers that it may NOT be per hindu scriptures to eat meat. Clearly, she must have by now understood the falsity in her inappropriate conclusions in this matter. <br /><br />//You are right in concluding that the Vedas do not prohibit meat eating except in some exceptions...// & //But as you only say, eating meat sanctified in sacrifices i.e. shrauta karmas is sanctioned.// & //I understand that Maamsa is not nishidda in kali too....// ---- This proves my point and disproves Ms. Jayashree's incorrect arguments. I am sure by now the misunderstandings of Ms. Jayashree and her readers have been cleared with your response, since they refuse to accept mine.<br /><br />//Also it is the same purana that forbids Ashvamedha.....// -- Per the sikha wearing gurus who have informed me, in Kali Yuga, the benefit of having performed Ashwamedha Yagnya is obtained by conducting 'Anaadha pretha Samskaara'. In 2011-2013, several birds have died and fell on my home property. I conducted their last rites for each such dead bird in my backyard, much to the disbelief and ridicule of my wife (Trust me, I am revealing this to you only since others would think I am mental if I were to tell this). When I asked one of my vedic brahmin practicing gurus, why the birds seem to always die and fall down on my property, this is what he had to say "...perhaps, they knew that falling dead there in their old age would benefit them with better rebirths or reaching higher lokas since there is a sad-brahmana there would would conduct their last rites.."<br /><br />//My only thing against meat eating is, that there is no proper dharmic source as of today.....// ----- you are mistaken, there is Valmiki Ramayana and then there is Shraadha ceremony, wherein the meat pinda has to be offered and Brahmans have to eat meat to their hearts' content! Yudhristhra confirms this in Vyasa MB, and Agastya confirms this in Valmiki Ramayana.<br /><br />//..........though i hold its no sin if you eat non veg under strict vaidika aachara.// - I hope Ms. Jayashree has taken notes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-72548900674359800492015-11-27T16:44:28.077+05:302015-11-27T16:44:28.077+05:30Mr Jay Sekhar as a side note, i know Mrs Jeyashree...Mr Jay Sekhar as a side note, i know Mrs Jeyashree personally. Also i too am a shikha wearing vaidika, with karna veedana, and by the way i have been a chamasadhvaryu in a Vajapeya soma yajna and i know the Yajna samans also, and also the Kauthuma sama veda to some extent. The Soma Yajna's I've been to are not the "Gayathri Parivaar" type but are performed by proper niyama adhikaris, with shadanga adhyayana with "Pratyaksha pashu", not the pishta variety as quoted by somebody. In the remote villages of south India. As of now i am learning shrauta from a revered scholar from Kulitalai who himself is a Vajapeya Yaaji and is a shadanga adhyeeta till Gana paata. So when i am making an opinion i am not doing it with a predetermined conclusion. I have a basic knowledge of purva mimamsa and am undergoing a class on Sayana Vedha bhashya for the Taittriya. Hope my credentials are Ok for you.<br /><br />This is my opinion on this topic.<br />1. I understand that Maamsa is not nishidda in kali too. Some puranas(Visnhu purana if im correct) though forbid it in shraddha for kali. Also it is the same purana that forbids Ashvamedha. And also the usage of the human, snake, deer, bull head in the Agnichayana mentioned in the 4th and 5th kandas of the Taittriya are changed. <br /><br />2. I do not agree with the view that Shankara agreed to use pishta pashu. In fact he never touched karma kanda. Only Madhva has sanctioned it. But it is against the cannons of shrauta.<br /><br />3. My only thing against meat eating is, that there is no proper dharmic source as of today. It is prohibited to get it from sellers for brahmanas. It is explicitly stated in the 3rd ashtaka 6 prashna of TB. Todays brahmanas may not have the necessary Tapas to counter the sins accruing from it. The reason is, not all perform the Vaishwadeva ceremony which ensure expiation for food related sins. But in pradesha's where meat eating can be desha achara like Bengal and other place you say, provided the brahmanas live up to the standards of vaidika aachara its ok.<br /><br />4. I do not believe eating meat from a shop or hotel is correct and should be condemened.<br /><br />5. Precluding all the above i think a safe diet would be veggie, though i hold its no sin if you eat non veg under strict vaidika aachara.<br /><br />R.Ramanathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842378468616200619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-18276408070177962372015-11-27T13:15:27.958+05:302015-11-27T13:15:27.958+05:30Dear Mr Jay Sekar,
I am Ramanathan. Let me first i...Dear Mr Jay Sekar,<br />I am Ramanathan. Let me first introduce myself. I work as a wireless Engineer in a reputed company in India. As for my Vedic credential i a have completed 52 prashnas in the Taittriya Shaka along with some portions of the Anga like shiksha, vyakarana, pratishakya, some shrauta. Still continuing to study the rest of the 30 prashnas.<br /><br />You are right in concluding that the Vedas do not prohibit meat eating except in some exceptions. Like for example in the Achidra(TB 3rd ashtaka, 5 or 6th anuvaka. If the fire of the aahita agni is extinguished, then a list of alternates is given till the fire is rekindled after the punaradhana ceremony. In that an option of pouring ghee into ear of a goat is given. After that a brahmana should not eat goat meat. Similarly in the Aranyaka 1st prashna, when one performs the Aruna ketu chayana one is forbidden to eat sea creatures. Also in some soma yajna deeksha the yajamana is forbidden from eating meat.<br /><br />But as you only say, eating meat sanctified in sacrifices i.e. shrauta karmas is sanctioned. Another alternative is eating meat given by a kshatriya after hunting(By the kshatriya). As did the Brahmanas who accompanied Yudhistra in Dwaitavana. <br /><br />Now consider this. In this age how many have completed Adyayana with shadangas, setup the treta Agni with adhana(Many do not perform the basic aupasana with the grihya agni), do the agnihotra without fail, and then perform soma sacrifices where meat based offerings are predominant?. Also in this age where is the dharmic kshatriya who has his upanayana, adyayana etc and Rajyabisheka?. With the absence of these sources of legitimate meat, is it not better to abstain from it?<br /><br />As for Rama eating meat he is kshatriya and as per his svadharma he is allowed to hunt for his country and sometimes other individuals who need support and of course for himself.<br /><br />Also you know the chandogya shruti vaakya "Ahimsan sarvaa bootani anyatra theertebyaha". Do not hurt any beings except in case of sacred rites like sacrifices. So it follows that with the absence of legitimate dharmic sanctioned sources of meat it is better to not have it as per the above shruti vaakya. Even now i attend soma sacrifices and i know the yajamana and Ritwiks have a very small quantity "Maasha/Tila matra" as per the shrauta sutra of apastamba.<br /><br />Even in Vanaprasta meat is allowed in cases where there is paucity of vegetable food. But again in kali vanaprasta is not possible. Hope this answers some of your queries<br /><br />Regards<br />Ramanathan.RR.Ramanathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01842378468616200619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-46358053073668861042015-11-27T09:16:15.107+05:302015-11-27T09:16:15.107+05:30//Meat eating (or in shraddha) as a sampradhya or ...//Meat eating (or in shraddha) as a sampradhya or tradition can be given up as there is sastric injunction to it....// --- really, where is this Saastric injunction per Yajur veda, which is the source of the mantraas and achaaraas for this ceremony? Quote the verses please!<br /><br />//No mantra in shraddha ceremony makes a provision for meat to be served is itself a proof of sastric injunction against meat in shraddha. // ----- Which verses in Shukla or Krishna Yajur veda state such exceptions? Please quote & explain!<br /><br />//Scary logic! That means only a minuscule of the population will have compassion and forgiving nature? If a king or Prime minister or Chief minister is so ( as you say), he will usurped. // ---- That is not sacry logic, it is the truth, i.e. simple logic. How many countless 'forgiving' Hindu kings have been defeated by deceit by the very Islamic kings they have forgiven? Sanaaatana dharma, i.e. dharma which exists eternally, remember??<br /><br />//Where to see Paramathman in that situation? // --- you see the paramaatma if you have done the duty of your varna. Clearly you don't know that since your brain is consumed entirely with your vehement arguing against it. Don't you know the historical report of Brahmin Kousika and Meat Vendor in Vyasa MB? If you are born in the varna of a Slaughterer of animals, doing your duty will get you to paramatma!<br /><br />//Food is a main factor in infusing sattwa, something Gitacharyan tells emphatically. Is meat sattwa food? // ---- Yes, a resounding yes, since it is not the food but your attitude (or what influences your attitude rather such as the arishad-vargaas) that define your nature. Saatvik is not peacefulness as many a sanyaasiis have incorrectly demanded of all varna-aashramaa people in the past 60 years. You need to have a very strong heart/veeryam/courage, for you to be able to do the right thing. That is called saathvik nature. 'Saathvik' nature means 'strong-hearted'!!! Not self-defeating peacefulness! Gitaacharya didnt prescribe vegetarian food! Prove me wrong, if you dare! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-33697182598649312582015-11-27T09:15:25.340+05:302015-11-27T09:15:25.340+05:30//It is obvious you have not read my article on an...//It is obvious you have not read my article on animal sacrifice for which I have given the link at the end of the blog. // - No, we don't need to read your article. Instead we need to read Vakmiki Ramayana, to obtain our understanding on what Vaali & Ramayana discussed, which is what I read. Perhaps you ought to re-read it.<br /><br />//Shows your ignorance. I have given the unedited version for most part. In addition I have given the links to the source....// ----- he he, NO, shows YOUR ignorance, since you are unable to prove me wrong!<br /><br />//I wantonly wrote about Newton’s 3rd law equating it with karma theory, because I waited for this reaction from you.......// ------ lol!!! Ya, right.. you are corresponding with a master debater here, i know the very feeling you experienced when you wrote this sentence. You know very well, you were surprised that I brought up Newton's law, and your ego prevented you from feeling a little sad that someone else on this earth could actually conjure up this comparison. <br /><br />//... drive home the point that only under constant conditions, equal and opposite reactions happen. In reality that is not the case. ....// ---- right, once again you prove my point, that newton's 3rd law of motion cannot be equated to be vedic karma concept, which you have hastily done in your own previous post. Now, of course you are singing a different tune, my tune, i.e.<br /><br />//For that only we refer to Sruti texts as authority.....// ----- right, so how come you were quoting us your interpretations previously as I have exposed above instead of relying and taking for face value Valmiki's or Agastya's verbatim?????<br /><br />//Without sastras, the sampradhya does not come.....// ------- Right, so now you know you can take what Valmiki sung for face value since he must have simply been narrating existing sampradhaaya, which must have come from their understanding of then Shaastrass, instead of interpreting on your own!<br /><br />//But not everything of sastra becomes a sampradhya. It depends on kala, desa, varthamana for an act to become part of sampradhya. But such an act must have sastric sanction. // ----- Did you realize how you just contradicted yourself?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-36163347525915444712015-11-27T09:14:07.688+05:302015-11-27T09:14:07.688+05:30//Similarly there no Vedic Hindus who eat meat.......//Similarly there no Vedic Hindus who eat meat....// Then, you clearly do not know the vedic purohits of Kashmir, or Afghanistan & Pakistan who eat meat. You clearly do not know of some Bengali and Marathi vedic purohits who eat meat. They are not in the wrong, because as I exposed your lack of understanding of Sanatana Dharma above, you are in the wrong on your assumptions. Sanatana Dharma permits meat eating very well!<br /><br />//Compassion & forgiveness needs to be offered and utilized as long as vedic dharma for each varna allows it. ..........These are universal....// No they are not, should I copy paste your own replies above wherein you state that it is ok for himsa in certain circumstances???<br /><br />//Forgivance and peaceful attitude must be there for everyone....// No, a king, a warrior and a minister should not be forgiving, if they were, it will be the end of that kingdom. <br /><br />//If you have told that it comes to Sattwic persons, I would have agreed. Sattwic nature comes from vegetarian food only.....// Herein lies the biggest misconception you have. You are equating sattwic attitude with peacefulness. Satvik or Sattwic is not 'shaanti'. Satvik or Sattwic attutude means strength of heart or courage. If you are not strong of heart, you CANNOT do the right thing under any circumstance! <br /><br />//By your logic you as a meat eater cannot have forgiving nature and peaceful attitude....// ---- So you clearly didnt read my post to comprehend, but only read it to respond & push your own agenda. By my logic, I can eat meat & still be a vedic persona! Then, you are attacking my character about forgiveness & peaceful nature. You made judgments about it, but you neither have ever met me, not have you ever talked to me. So, How do you know whether my nature is as you describe? You do not know. Are we to understand that at this point, you lost your mind to anger and temper, and thus should we discount any further written responses from you as an angry person's stubborn outburst?<br /><br />//On Shraddha ceremonies:- Have you ever heard, other than what is written in texts like MB, of a Brahmin having taken meat in Shraddha ceremony....// ------ Why do we need to hear? It is clearly there in Kirshna Yajur Veda, read it!<br /><br />//Yes, untruth prevails in Kali yuga with likes of yourself making claims on meat eating as in your comments....// ------ right, just quote back to me what I said about you. Clearly, you couldn't come up with something better to counter-argue against what I said about you. Demonstrates the limits of your own intellect.<br /><br />//As Siddha Artha quoted twice, why don’t you read the article on Yajna in....// - What authority does this 'Siddha Aratha' have? I have read Valmiki's ramayana, and Rig Veda in entirety, they are authority and I trust them. If you seriously are trusting nobody's like this Siddha Artha fellow, here's a CAUTION to you, dont further fall in ignorance by trusting praises/following of/from this type of people. Btw, do you know that Mr. Ramanathan personally? If not, you have no surety of his character and authenticity of his opinions. I for one, will continue to take Valmiki and Rishis of Rig & Yajur veda literally, with explanations from Sikha-wearing gurus/purohits only. As a blogger, you ought to also!<br /><br />//Look at the word “prajānāṃ hitakāmena” benefiting all men. It is not a sanction to cook at your kitchen. It is for the yajna done for welfare of people at large.....// ----- Agastya clearly stated that there is no further sanctification required for deers. You are trying to twist what he may have 'meant'. I will not try to interpret, like you, about his purpose of saying it. I take it for face value since he is an authority to be trusted, unlike you. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-12225614811557934562015-11-27T09:12:26.042+05:302015-11-27T09:12:26.042+05:30//All these must have been consumed by the agni in...//All these must have been consumed by the agni in the Homa...// - Again, I know you are <br />expressing your own opinions & interpretations, and I once again have to put you in your place by pointing the obvious to you that don't assume your interpretations to be truth, because they are exactly that, your interpretations. Yet, I shall at least state common sense here. Think about it, do you know how large an antelope carcass is? Imagine putting that in agni in a homa! Rama clearly offered it as naivedya & not throw it into agni like you assume.<br /><br />//Therefore this verse also cannot be quoted to say that Rama ate meat. There is no <br />sanctifying the meat food for eating.// -- Your fallacy in this statement has been clearly <br />exposed and rendered invalid in my above replies. <br /><br />//All that Rama did was to do Punyahavachana ceremony for the new house and worship of deities after entering. What was cooked was not for them to eat. // ----- Then, what was it for? clearly, your interpretations fall short since you never ate meat. Fire would simple be extinguished under a huge cooked carcass like an antelope's if put on it. It was for neivedya which had to be eaten thereafter, since naivedyas are eaten as god's prasadam to us under Sanatana Dharma. <br /><br />Havis is a seperate concept. Havis is poured into agni and not 'offered' to god. Havis is <br />blood, where as meat/pindam is an offering. Just FYI, since based on your replies you clearly do not know the difference.<br /><br />//You are confused. Himsa done to satisfy one’s own need is a sin that attracts <br />retribution...// Not me, dear. It is clear who is confused here. YOU, because clearly you do not know that Sanatana dhamra condones apadh dharma. When you are in trouble, i.e. in clear present & immediate danger, if you were to kill in self defence, that will NOT beget you sin per Sanatana Dharma. Don't think so? Again, go ask a sikha wearing purohit.<br /><br />//The question of himsa does not come there as it is for common good and for establishing <br />justice....// & //......These killings are unavoidable, unintentional and beyond the control of one. They do constitute himsa....// ------- Now you see the fallacy of a statement like 'Ahimsa paramo dharmaha...' which you were touting in your previous post??????? as an absolute out-of-context statement! I love your responses to my posts, you just keep exposing fallacies in your arguments and keep proving me right. An old adage, usually attributed to Mark Twain, you keep proving right about youself - 'It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.' It may be better for you to stop responding to my posts, instead of removing all doubt in your readers' minds. And instead, read my responses for understanding rather than reading solely for replying. After the above statements you made, you proceeded to explain why Sanatana Dharma condones such grishastha himsa, further proving me true. I am glad you know those reasons for your readers sake.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109141700581229844noreply@blogger.com