Sri Sangom
Please keep writing .. And we all get two kinds of opposition. One from a religiosity based reaction. I get that too
You may or may not realize but to me you are preaching a religion - one of your own interpretation.
Another kind of opposition may be by a set of reasons. When there are more than one interpretation in use one cannot simply say that is because someone is wishing your interpretation away.
There are but few references to meat in VR. But hundreds of references do exist to promoting the eating of vegetables. You may be right in your interpretation but there are other interpretations that do exist for words you used to come to your understanding . You can acknowledge their existence and move on.
I could not care less which is correct since I offered my understanding that we are not history centrism oriented tradition.
Here are my notes from a website. I do not know if this practice is true today but it is likely.
"In the South Indian temple town of Srirangam, when priests offer mango to Lord Ranganath, they chant the prayer, “iti aamra mamsa khanda samarpayami”
(“I offer mango ‘mamsa’-mango flesh- for the Lord to eat) "
So the usage may be there today also of the word mamsa.
If those are flimsy to you that is a personal opinion for which I have no response.
Regards
Dear Shri tks sir,
I will take up the following observation first:
"In the South Indian temple town of Srirangam, when priests offer mango to Lord Ranganath, they chant the prayer, “iti aamra mamsa khanda
samarpayami” (“I offer mango ‘mamsa’-mango flesh- for the Lord to eat) "
You have not given the source, but it looks like an excerpt from somewhere. Will you kindly furnish the original source also for my info?
The smaarta practice is to offer the two sides or "katuppus" of a mango fruit, as we call them here, as naivedyam. It is an accepted practice not to offer a single
item/piece as naivedyam; even in the case of the ordinary yellow banana, a minimum of two have to be offered (I don't know the reason.) When the two fleshy parts, usually called "mango flesh" in western recipes, is offered as naivedyam the mantra to be recited as per Shastra is "आम्रफल खण्डद्वयं निवेदयामि or आम्रफल खण्डद्वयं महानैवेद्यं समर्पयामि" (āmraphala khaṇḍadvayaṃ nivedayāmi or āmraphala khaṇḍadvayaṃ mahānaivedyaṃ samarpayāmi).
The quote you have given seems to have a grammatical error also; "iti aamra mamsa khanda samarpayami" will truly mean "thus, piece of mango flesh: I offer"
the object is not in dwiteeyaa vibhakti (mamsa khandam or mamsa khandaan, if there are more than two, will be the correct mantra, imho. Hence, your
reference does not seem to be from an authentic source.)
Coming to meat- eating by Rama in Vaalmeeki Ramayana, there is this sloka:
क्रोशमात्रम् ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मनौ || २-५५-३३
बहून्मेध्यान् मृगान् हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने |
33. tataH = thereafter; gatvaa = having travelled; kroshamaatram = only a couple of miles; bhraatarau = the two brothers; raamalakshhmaNau = Rama and Lakshmana; hatvaa = killed; bahuun = many; medhyaan = consecrated (edible as per Shastras); mR^igaan = deer; cheratuH = ate; yamunaavane = in the river-forest of Yamuna.
Thereafter having travelled only a couple of krosas, the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer and ate in the river-forest of Yamuna.
The verb root चर (cara) means "to eat" as also "to move, to go" and certain other meanings like to graze, etc., which may not fit in here. If we take the escapist route of 'go' as the correct one, we will come to the meaning—
Thereafter having travelled only a couple of miles the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer and went to the river-forest of Yamuna.
This will then be very similar to the one mentioned earlier, viz. —
तौ तत्र हत्वा चतुरः महा मृगान्।
वराहम् ऋश्यम् पृषतम् महा रुरुम्।
आदाय मेध्यम् त्वरितम् बुभुक्षितौ।
वासाय काले ययतुर् वनः पतिम्॥ २-५२-१०२
tau tatra hatvā caturaḥ mahā mṛgān |
varāham ṛśyam pṛṣatam mahā rurum |
ādāya medhyam tvaritam bubhukṣitau|
vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaḥ 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.
If we keep out the eating of the meat of the hunted animals, because in our belief Rama (and therefore, Lakshmana and Sita) could not have eaten flesh, then it will be clearly seen that these two brothers Rama and Lakshmana were killing the non-dangerous herbivores just for time-pass. What a cruel pastime for one who is hailed as a paradigm for good conduct! Even if it is argued that hunting was a shastra-permitted pastime for kshatriyas in those days, should not Rama have refrained from killing perfectly gentle deer and just leaving their dead bodies and also forbidden Lakshmana from indulging in such cowardly hunting tactics? (It is relevant to note that the same Rama meticulously stuck to the one-wife principle - in terms of hindu perception of 20th. and 21st. century - even though the Shastras permitted many wives for the king and Manthara alludes to such a state of affairs existing. Again, recently one cinema actor did much the same heroic act of killing a black buck and is going in and out of the court of law even now!)
Therefore, if it is held that the Maryaadaa Purushotham Ram just indulged in some sort of deer-killing spree during every day of the vanavaasa, it will be an illegal atrocity by today's standards of ethicality, imo. May be, there will be some saving grace at least if it is accepted that in those days (Govinda says millions of years ago) people ate meat, irrespective of their caste and that Ramalakshamanou, killed deer and ate the permissible portions of the meat thereof.
As to brahmins themselves eating meat, VR itself has the following verses :—
रोहितान् वक्र तुण्डान् च नल मीनान् च राघव॥ ३-७३-१४
पंपायाम् इषुभिः मत्स्यान् तत्र राम वरान् हतान्।
निस्त्वक्पक्षानयसतप्तानकृशान्नैककण्टकान् - यद्वा -
निः त्वक् पक्षान् अयस तप्तान् अकृशान् न अनेक कण्टकान्॥ ३-७३-१५
तव भक्त्या समायुक्तो लक्ष्मणः संप्रदास्यति।
भृशम् तान् खादतो मत्स्यान् पंपायाः पुष्प संचये॥ ३-७३-१६
rohitān vakra tuṇḍān ca nala mīnān ca rāghava || 3-73-14
paṁpāyām iṣubhiḥ matsyān tatra rāma varān hatān |
nistvakpakṣānayasataptānakṛśānnaikakaṇṭakān - yadvā -
niḥ tvak pakṣān ayasa taptān akṛśān na aneka kaṇṭakān || 3-73-15
tava bhaktyā samāyukto lakṣmaṇaḥ saṁpradāsyati |
bhṛśam tān khādato matsyān paṁpāyāḥ puṣpa saṁcaye || 3-73-16
"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. [3-73-14b, 15, 16a]
पद्म गन्धि शिवम् वारि सुख शीतम् अनामयम्।
उद्धृत्य स तदा अक्लिष्टम् रूप्य स्फटिक सन्निभम्॥ ३-७३-१७
अथ पुष्कर पर्णेन लक्ष्मणः पाययिष्यति।
padma gandhi śivam vāri sukha śītam anāmayam |
uddhṛtya sa tadā akliṣṭam rūpya sphaṭika sannibham || 3-73-17
atha puṣkara parṇena lakṣmaṇaḥ pāyayiṣyati |
"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... [3-73-16b, 17, 18a]
पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव।
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः॥ १-१७-३९
paṁca paṁca nakhā bhakṣyā brahma kṣatreṇa rāghava |
śalyakaḥ śvāvidho godhā śaśaḥ kūrmaḥ ca paṁcamaḥ || 1-17-39
"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]
saH tvam naama ca gotram ca kulam aacakSva tattvataH |
ekaH ca daNDakaaraNye kim artham carasi dvija || 3-47-24
"Such as you are, oh, Brahman, you may make mention of your name, parentage and caste, in their actuality. For what reason you are wandering in Dandaka forest lonesomely?" Thus Seetha questioned Ravana.
It is worth noting that Ravana had disguised himself as a dvija or one of the three higher castes.
Hence we may safely conclude that in those days the higher castes used to eat meat.
We have additional evidences to prove that flesh-eating by even great personages of yore.
तस्माद्धेन्वनद्दुहोर्नाश्नीयात् । तदुहोवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । अश्नामि ऎवाहमंसलं चॆद्भवतीति ।
(शतपथ ब्रा. III.1.2.21) II-2-75 djvu page
"Therefore cows which are not lactating should not be eaten. Yajnavalkya said this: I (will) eat if it is "aṃsala" (tender?).
āpastaṃba dharma sūtra prescribes that the obligatory śrāddha must contain food mixed with fat, the best course being clarified butter and flesh (naiyamikaṃ tu śrāddha snehavadeva dadyāt | sarpirmāṃsamiti prathama kalpa \abhāve tailaśākamiti | āpa. dha. sū. II.8.19.13 to 15). The same sūtra also states that the pitṛs are satiated for a year by the offering of cow's flesh in a śrāddha, that by the fleś of a buffalo the gratification of pitṛs extends to more than a year, that this rule extends to the flesh of wild animals like hare, and domesticated animals like goats, that are fit for being sacrificed, that the pitṛs are gratified for endless time if the flesh of a rhinoceros is offered to the śrāddhabrāhmaṇas seated on rhinoceros skin, as also by the flesh of the (p-460, IV) fish called śatabali or the flesh of vārddhrīṇasa.
(saṃvatsaraṃ gavyena prīti| bhūyāsamato māhiṣeṇa | etena grāmyāraṇyānāṃ paśūnāṃ māṃsaṃ medhya vyākhyātam | khaḍgopastataraṇe khaḍgamāṃsenānantyaṃ kālam | tathā śatabalermatsyasya māṃsena vāghrāṇasya ca | (āpa. dha. sū. II.7.16.25 & II.&. 17.3)
It will, therefore, be no blasphemy IMHO, to hold the opinion that VR depicts Rama, Lakshmana and Sita as eating the edible flesh of the various animals which the brothers hunted and killed.
I have also read that in Kamba ramayanam, Rama finds fault with Sita for her liking for meat, most probably before agnipravesam. Somebody who may be thorough with Kambaramayanam may enlighten.
