194 Part 2- More replies to comments of Shri Hariharan

Anonymous M G Hariharan said...

We seem to be talking in parallel. I am not disputing that Rama killed animals for sport. Valmiki has written it. If according to you this shows a low character in Rama then so it is. I want you to understand that you cannot read Ramayana with these sorts of modern ethical parameters and comment. Morals also change with time. Hunting is not a bad activity (Sport). Till recently it was in vogue. And is still practiced by many. Hinduism gives lots of stories to educate people on living. Some of the morals may have changed. But in general it is still applicable to life. Many situations that Rama encounters are still faced by many of us in daily life. These stories inspire us to excel in life. If as you say Rama’s character is all questionable then why are people reading these stories after 1000 years? Why it is religiously accepted and appreciated? You are belittling everything without understanding it. Hence I am saying understand and then comment.

Anonymous M G Hariharan said...

No No I am not belittling your understanding. The problem unlike religious books Ramayana does to discuss the subject. It is as if Valmiki has recorded the scene and voices and presented it to us. It is for us to translate and learn from it. Each person’s perspective will be different and conclusions can be different. You have asked about Vali vadh. It will be interesting to note that Sugriva did not ask Rama to kill Vali. He just wanted the quarrel to be settled amicably. But Rama says bring him in front of me I shall kill him immediately. And further Vali also says to Tara that he does not want to kill Sugriva. Only thrash him and send him back. So various interpretations can be drawn from this. As this is your Blog you are free to give your opinion. But others ideas also will contribute to understanding ethics.

ybrao a donkey finds *nishAda (forest-dwelling hunter) killed kraunca birds for his food. Were rAma and lakshmaNa (in mahAbharata pANDavas in exile) killing deer and pigs for food or for sport? If it was for food, we need not find fault with them except when they infant animals, pregnant animals, and disproportionately large number of animals when compared to their food needs. Anyway, they were not doing any export business. If their killing was intended for protecting innocent citizens , they should have directed their prowess against most cruel animals like lions, tigers, leopards, crocodiles, which might have been plenty in those days. If they were killing just for sport, we cannot, then called oceans of kindness (karuNA-payO-nidhis).

*Comparison of modern times with ancient times: If killing for sport is regarded as barbaric in 21st Century India and it was regarded as a delightful and refreshing sport in trEtAyugam (rAma's age), can we say that the Goddess of ethics and virtuosity (dharma dEvata) ran on 3 out of 4 feet in trEtA yugam and is now running only with one foot in kali yugam (modern evil age)? If killing a person from behind a tree, killing a person without inviting him for a battle or seeking his explanation, r leaving pregnant wife in forest without telling her, were great dharmas performed by maryAdA purushottamas (best persons of etiquette and culture among humans), during trEtA yuga, then which yuga (age) is better? trEtA yuga or kali yuga?

*General belief among Indians who have not read Sanskrit vAlmiki rAmAyaNa with an observant eye, is that rAma went to forest exile VOLUNTARILY, to fulfil his father's promise to his step mother, and thus set a great example worthy of being worshipped as supreme human and supreme God.

Now,let us see these verses: Context, rAma sleeping some of the first nights in forest, after Minister Sumanta left them in forest. Volume is 02 Book of ayOdhya, ayOdhyA kANDa. rAma was telling lakshmaNa that they should spend the night alertly. Chapter 53. Starts with verse 006.

8. anAthaH caiva vriddhaH ca mayA caiva vinAkritaH
kim kariShyati kAma AtmA kaikeyyA vaSam AgataH.
approximate gist: Having gone into the control of kaikEyi (kaikeyya vaSam), what the kAmAtma (a person whose soul is filled with lust), what the old and orphanised (king) can do, without me?

ybrao a donkey's view: Does a son who has voluntarily gone to forest to fulfil his father's desire, call his father kAmAtma? rAma was equating daSaratha to a sinner. If we the 21st Century Indians, whether you hariharan, or myself ybrao, were asked by our fathers to leave house, because step mother want it, we would have straight-a-way refused to go. Whether we go to forest or not, we do not call father a kAmAtma.

Book 2. Chapter 53. Verse 9.
9.idam vyasanam Alokya rAgnAh ca mati vibhramam kAmaeva ardha dharmAbhyaam garIyAn iti me matiH.
Approx. gist: Seeing this addiction (vyasanam, some translators have interpreted as misfortune. Meaning of addiction will be more appropriate, as we have the phrase sapta vyasanams (seven vices= woman, gambling, alcoholism, hunting, using harsh words, administering harsh punishments, squandering money without benefit), and the derangement of mind of theking, I (rAma) get an impression that kAma (lust-passion) is greater than (garIyAn meaning heavy, strong, akin to guru, gauravam etc.) the other two goals of life i.e. wealth (artha) and dharma (righteousness).

ybrao a donkey's feeling: rAma was very harsh on daSaratha. If rAma was unhappy with his kAmAtma father, addicted and mentally deranged father, he ought to have left towards some other kingdom or forest without any commitment f14 years, and lived happily with kausalya and Sita, lakshmaNa and UrmiLa. Nobody would have forced them to stay in ayOdhya. By selling their heavy gold ornaments, they could have built a small home and lived with self-respect.

2.53.10.
ko hi avidvAn api pumAn pramadaayAH kritE tyajEt
chanda anuvartinam putram tAtaH maam iva lakShmaNa.

Approximate Gist: No father, howsoever, illiterate and deluded he may be, under orders of a woman, would have abandoned-relinquished (tyajEt) his son, like me.

ybrao a donkey: Here rAma was comparing daSaratha, with an illiterate and deluded person, and pointing out that even a deluded man would not have done that. Was rAma not an obedient son of daSaratha. Why was he cursinghis father? If this cursing is done in trEtA yuga it becomes righteousness and if done in kali yuga becomes bad?

2.53.11.
sukhii bata sabhAryaH ca bharataH kekayI sutaH
muditaan kosalAn Eko yo bhokShyati adhirAjavat.

Approximate gist: bata means alas! kekayI's son bharata alone (EkO) is enjoying with his wife (sabhAryA), the kOsala kingdom like supremo.

ybrao a donkey's feelings: Why all this lamentation by a maryAdA purushOttma? Didn't rAma like bharata to rule ayOdhya, to fulfil his father's will? .

Now, rAma curses daSaratha:

verse 12 also shows rAma's worry. bharata singly gets kingdom. I am condemned to forest.

sa hi sarvasya raajyasya mukham ekam bhaviShyati
tAte ca vayasA atiite mayi ca araNyam ASritE.

2.53.13. artha dharmau parityajya yaH kAmam anuvartate evam Apadyate kShipram rAjaa daSaratho yathA.

Approx.gist: whoever abandons righteousness, and follows kAma (lust) will fast fall in danger, like daSaratha.

ybrao a donkey's feeling: Was rAma cursing daSaratha?

Verses 14 to 21 contain more lamentations of rAma. let us verse 22.

2.53.22.
manye prIti vishiShTA sA mattaH lakShmaNa SArikA
yasyAH tat shrUyate vAkyam Suka pAdam arEr daSa.

Approx. Gist. O lakshmaNa: The parrot (SArika) which was uttering the words "Oh parrot (Suka)! Bite the feet of the enemies (ari=enemy. arEr=enemies. arEr pAdam=feet of the enemies. ), must have been more affectionate to my mother (kausalya)."

ybrao a donkey's feelings: daSaratha's queens and servants of rAmAyaNa period, might have been teaching parrots tosay "Bite the feet of the enemies". Or, the parrots might have heard these words from Queens and their servants, and learnt them on their own. Anyway, the parrots were repeatedly saying "Bite the feet of the enemies" to the Queens, and in turn getting some fruits and nuts as reward. Queens+servants might have been cursing their co-queens and asking the parrots to bite the feet of their enemies (co-queens). Why rAma was comparing himself with a feet-biting parrot?

2.53.25. ekO hi aham ayodhyAm ca prithivIm ca api lakShmaNa tarEyam iShubhiH kruddhO nanu vIryam akAraNam.

Approx. Gist. Angered I am, I can single-handedly subdue not only ayOdhya, but also the whole Earth, but I am not doing it , without reason.

ybrao a donkey's view: rAma's wrath over his father, kaikEyi and bharata was very clear and understandable. I do not find fault with that. But, again he was indulging in hyperboles. Destroying not only ayOdhya, but also the whole Earth. (But he required sugrIva's help to search Sita and vibhIshaNa's help to kill rAvaNa. He could have straight-away gone on to destroy ayOdhya and the Earth.) What prevented him. Following verse gives the answer.

2.53.26.
adharma bhaya bhItaH ca para lokasya ca anagha
tEna lakShmaNa na adya aham Atmaanam abhishEcayE.

approx. gist: I am afraid of doing doing something which is not righteous. I am afraid of what will happen to me in the other world (paralOka bhayam= fear of heaven or hell). For that reason only, I shall not allow myself to be crowned.

ybrao a donkey's views: Sometimes, rAma behaved that he knew that he was an incarnation of God. Here, ignorantly, he is attributing his inaction to the eventualities in heaven/hell. Suppose, there was no fear of hell (paralOka bhayam), would he have killed bharata and kaikEyi and crowned himself? Either he was incapable of attacking ayOdhya or the Whole Earth, or fear of hell paralOka bhayam stopped him from doing so.

We can compare this predicament of rAma to the predicament of Arjuna in bhagavadgIta. Arjuna was hesitating to kill his brothers, uncles and grand-fathers. He was afraid of unleashing bloodshed. krishNa called it ignorance. krishna insisted that warriors should fight, as it is their svadharma. Here, lakshmaNa should have taken up the role of krishNa. but lakshmaNa seemed to know cutting trees for raising cottages, hunting deer and barbecueing and bringing water from rivers. He (preachers of rAmAyaNa) did not think of Bhagavad Gita. Preaching rAma was left to vasishTha (book: yOga vAsishTham). Primarily, the predicament of rAma-lakshmaNas was not different from the predicament of pANDavas of mahAbharata. They lost their kingdom, owing to the avarice of their step brothers. Why, What was a solution for krishNa-arjunas could not become a solution for rAma-lakshmaNas?

2.53.27.
Etat anyac ca karuNam vilapya vijane bahu
aSru pUrNa mukhO rAmaH nishi tUShNIm upAviSat.

aSru pUrNa mukhO rAmah = Tear-filled-(eyed) rAma, spent his night wailing.

ybrao a Donkey's feelings: This cursing, lamenting, weeping, wailing, should have been reserved for ordinary souls of kali-yuga like us. rAma was a dharmagna (one who knows what was right and what was not right). He ought to have remained more composed and steadfast. The above verses only show that he too reacted like us.

More to write. To continue, after waiting to find if anybody will be hurt. if necessary, this blog post will be revised/deleted.

193 Replies to the comments of Shri hariharan, about Killing & Eating

Replies to comments of Shri M.G. Hariharan.

Anonymous M G hariharan said...

I find my comments in other columns are not being answered by you. Probably you are waiting. But I request your reply for this comment. It is a clarification regarding your comment 94/95 After Bharadwaj muni Rama again goes and kills and eats( Exactly similar to Guha episode). But the word in sloka is charathur (Charathi = Sanchara or roaming) How did you translate it as ate. So here again Just because they killed does not mean they ate it. It is to your advantage that Valmikiramayana.net also translates it as ate. Your knowledge of Sanskrit is good so please clarify.

Reply by ybrao a donkey

I am not a Sanskrit scholar. Hence, please accept my apologies for erroneous translations. You are free to correct me

Apart from the translation at vAlmikirAmayan.net, I have analysed the meaning of charatur as eating, using the following analogy.

In my mother tongue telugu language, we have a phrase called carvitaa-carvaNam (or charvita charvaNam). The renowned poet bammera pOtanAmAtya of 15th Century used this phrase in his telugu translation of Srimad bhAgavatam. Context: prahlAda carita. History of prahlAda.

prahlAda was replying to his father hiraNya kaSipa.

verse in utpalamAla meter. Vyasa Mahabhagavata's 15th Century CE Telugu Translation.

ఉ. అచ్చపుఁ జీఁకటిం బడి గృహవ్రతు లై విషయ ప్రవిష్టు లై
చచ్చుచుఁ బుట్టుచున్‌ మఱల చర్వితచర్వణు లైన వారికిం
జెచ్చెరఁ బుట్టునే? పరులు సెప్పిన నైన నిజేచ్ఛ నైన నే
మిచ్చిన నైనఁ గానలకు నేఁగిన నైన హరిప్రబోధముల్‌

In Roman Script:
accapu cIkatim padi griha vratulai, vishaya pravishTulai,
caccucu puTTucun marala carvita carvaNu laina vArikin
ceccera puTTunE ? parula seppina naina, nijEccha nainan E
miccina nainan kAnalaku nEgina naina, hari prabOdhamul ?

English Gist: Those householders who fall in the darkness of ignorance, becoming householders, becoming enamored with worldly pleasures, charvita-charvaNulaina = those who eat what was already eaten. etc.

ybrao-a-donkey's view not intended to be imposed on others

This charvita charvaNam can refer to both eating, and enjoying sexual pleasures. Yesterday we ate food, today we eat food, tomorrow we shall eat food. In the same way, yesterday we had sex, today we have sex, tomorrow we shall have sex. Yesterday we boozed. Today we booze. Tomorrow weshall booze. When we do something again and again, regardless of-- whether it is absolutely unavoidable for surviving on earth, or regardless of whether we have become addicted to it, then, it becomes charvita charvaNam.

Thus the Sanskrit root 'cara' might have given birth to 'carvaNa'.

tAmbUla carvaNam (charvaNam) means = chewing pan leaves and betel nuts.

Thus I felt that it was reasonable to accept the vAlmIkirAmAyan.net's translation of charatur to mean eating.

Anyway, this needs greater investigation.

---

The following verse is after crossing ganga river with the help of guha and before reaching bharadwAja's hermitage.

We shall take up the original verse: 2.52.102.

tau tatra hatvA caturaH mahA mrigAn
varaaham Rishyam pRiShaTam mahaa rurum
Adaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukShitau
vAsAya kAle yayatur vanaH patim.

The following verse is after leaving bharadwAja's hermitage and crossing yamuna.

We shall take up the original verse: 2.55.33.
kroshamAtram tato gatvA bhrAtarau rAmalakshmanau
bahUn mEdhyAn mrigAn hatvA ceratur yamunaavane

hatvA indicates that the brothers killed. bahUn indicates many animals. mEdhyAn indicates killing. Though the meaning of consecrated can be taken, it will not work here, because rAma and lakshmaNa were not performing any sacrifice or worshipping Gods. They were just hungry. medhyAn, therefore indicates worthy of killing and eaten.

Suppose rAma and lakshmaNa killed the animals without intent to eat, that will, then be worse, because it becomes purposeless binge of killing. There is difference between harmful cruel animals like lions and tigers and innocent grass-eating animals like deer and pigs.

See this verse.2.56.23.

mrigam hatvaa a anaya kshipram
lakshmaNEha shubhekshaNa
kartavyaH shaastradriShTo
hi vidhirdarmamanusmara

rAma was asking lakshmaNa to kill and bring an animal for performing a ritual before entering the thatched hut.

See this verse 2.56.25.

iNEyam shrapayasva itach
cchAlaam yakshyamahe vayam
tvarasaumya muhuurto ayam
dhruvashcha divaso.apyayam .

rAma was asking lakshmaNa to boil the antelope. Now see 2.56.26.

sa lakShmaNaH kriShNa mrigam hatvaa medhyam pataapavaan
atha cikShepa saumitriH samiddhe jAta vedasi.

Now, lakshmaNa throws the blank antelope (krishNa mrigam without white spots) into the sacrificial pyre. 2.56.27.

tam tu pakvam samAGYaaya niShTaptam chinna shoNitam lakShmaNaH puruSha vyaaghram atha raaghavam abraviit.

Now, lakshmaNa informs rAma, after duly barbecuing the poor deer. Here, readers, please see: Valmiki was calling lakshmaNa= purusha vyAghra (tiger among men) for doing this dirty job. Tigers devor deer, of course without throwing them into fire. Humans throw the deer into fire/pyre and devour them later.

Now see verse 2.56.28.

ayam kRiShNaH samApta angaH
shritaH kRiiShNa mRigo yathaa
devataa deva samkASa
yajasva kushalo hi asi.

Now, lakshmaNa was telling rAma that the black fellow was burnt. lakshmaNa was comparing rAma to God. dEva samkASa means 'Oh equal to God'. He was asking rAma to worship Gods. What was all this God-like persons throwing that poor black antelope into fire? Was there anything really Godly in that ghastly cruel deed?

Let us see this verse. 2.56.29.

rAmaH snaatvaa tu niyataH
guNavAn japya kovidaH
samgraheN AkarOt sarvaan
mantran satrAvasAnikaan.

rAma now chants sacred script. Here, see the adjectives used by vAlmiki. guNavAn=virtuous person. japya kOvida=learned in meditation. What did he learn? Throwing antelopes into fire? What scripts were they? How they were going to purify the thatched hut?

Throwing the black deer, rAma became glorious and purified. See this verse.2.56.30

iShTvaa devagaNaan sarvaan
viveshaavasatham shuciH
babhuuva ca manohlAdo
raamasya amitatejasaH.

See the adjectives manOhlAdO= delighted, jubilant and relaxed. amita tEjasah= with great shining.

Now see this mEthyam and 2.96.1 and 2.

tAm tathA darshayitvA
tu maithilIM girinimnagAm
niShasAda giriprasthe siitAM
mAMsEna chandayan .

idam medhyam idaM svAdu
niSTaptam idam agninA
evam Aste sa dharmAtmaa
sItayA saha rAghavaha.

Context: Now rAma was feeding pieces of steak into SItA's mouth. idam mEdhyam= this is worthy of eating? idam svAdu= this is succulent and tasy. nistApam idam agninA = this is well-roasted in fire.

We can see this verse:3.47.22 and 23.

samAshvasa muhuurtam tu shakyam vastum iha tvayaa AgamiShyati me bhartaa vanyam Adaaya puShkalam ruruun godhAn varAhAn ca hatvA AdAya amiShAn bahu.

Context: rAvana visited Sita at pancavaTi, with intent to abduct her, in the guise of a priest. Sita, initially was not aware of rAVaNa's intent. She was asking him to wait, indicating that her husband would bring lot of meats consisting of pigs, deer, lizards (gOdhA probably means lizards or four leg snakes) etc.

Hence, it is clear that the three Sita, rAma, and Lakshmana were using meats as staple-diet. See this verse. 3.44.27.

nihatya pRiShatam ca
anyam mAMsam Adaaya rAghavaH
tvaramANo janasthAnam
sasAra abhimukhaH tadaa.

Context: After killing mArIcA rAma had to return in a hurry. But he chose to hunt another deer in lieu of mArica.

---

summary: Nowhere in my blogposts, I commented that it was wrong on the part of rAma taking n.v. food. My criticism was against his breaking promises, in spite of telling kaushalya, guha et al , that he would live on fruits. rAma declined to take meats offered by guhA. In two days, Rama and Lakshmana started killing animals 'bahUn=many'.

As a kshatriya (warrior), they were justified in hunting and eating.

Was there any justification in throwing the black deer into fire? Rama was a karuNa payO nidhi = Ocean of compassion. This throwing into fire was not for any great purpose. Just to enter a leaf-hut!

What rAma and lakshmaNa were during 13 years in the forest? They could have learnt some agriculture. No mention at all about agriculture by the brothers. Did they go on a killing spree day in and day out.

It is worth comparing this "series of killing" to what pAnDavas had done during their 12 year exile to forest.

For this hariharanji, kindly see my mahabharata blog. Click to go to mahabharatayb.blogspot.com. arjuna went on pilgrimage. Four brothers were remaining. Their daily ritual was hunting pigs, each one going in one direction. I shall add those details here later, as it is already past midnight before my computer table. This blog post will be thoroughly revised after taking your views into consideration.