Collection Of All Spiritual Stuffs.

Helpful Tips on Sanatana Dharma / Hindu Principles - 110

with 0 Comment
Helpful Tips on Sanatana Dharma / Hindu Principles - 110
This section Helpful Tips is all about Frequently Arising Questions. Gurujis, share the knowledge on general topics and Hindu Sanathana Dharma in their Television Programmes telecasted in ETV Kannada Channel & Suvarna News 24x7 etc., which i have put in this section. Gurujis also share information of knowledge on Vasthu Shastra and lot of Helpful stuffs. Many People have lot of doubts on Hindu Sanathana Dharma, which is also covered in this section.
Please do ask a priest or elders, if you have any doubts in below, who knows very well about our customs and practices and clarify the same.

  • Was Lord Rama a Non-Vegetarian?

    Helpful Tips on Sanatana Dharma / Hindu Principles - 110Different individuals have different views on it. According to Brahmanda Guruji Shri Narendra Babu Sharmaji Lord Rama was a non-vegetarian.

    Rama's non-vegetarian inclinations are apparent early in the Valmiki Ramayana; in Ayodhyakanda sarga 20, he laments to his mom Kausalya about his imminent exile from the kingdom into the forest (due to his wicked co-mom Kaikeyi's plot) during which he would be abstaining from meat as is served at the palace:

    "[Rama:] 'I shall live in the forest for fourteen years abstaining from animal food and living on tuberous roots and fruits like unto the ascetics. The king shall confer upon Bharata the heir-apparentship and shall banish me as an ascetic into the forest. And I shall live in that solitary forest for eight and six years, feasting on roots, and fruits and performing the duties of a hermit.' " -- Ramayana 2:20. [Dutt, Manmatha Nath. The Ramayana: translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit of Valmiki. Calcutta: Deva Press, 1889-94. Vol. I. p.246].

    On the other hand, few justify Lord Rama was an vegetarian with following explanation.
    The Ayodhya Kanda has 119 chapters. Chapter 20 describes Mother Kaushalya's grievous lamentation on hearing from her son Rama, that He has been banished to the forest. Rama tells her in verse 29, "I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, avoiding meat and living with roots, fruits and honey". Can we validly infer from this that Lord Rama ate meat while in Ayodhya, and now He promises to avoid it in the forest? The exact words used are 'hitva aamishham'. 'aamisham' refers to meat and 'hitva' refers to 'disregarding' or 'with the exception of' (Monnier Williams dictionary). Traditionally, in Vedic culture, when a son leaves home to go to distant lands, he reassures his parents, that he would abide by strict moral codes and never deviate from the religious principles. Say a student promises his parents when going to stay in the hostel, "I won't drink alcohol while in the hostel." Does this mean that he is drinking it while at home? Obviously not. Similarly it's in this mood that Lord Rama assures His mother that he wouldn't stoop low.

    There are many places where it is mentioned that Rama ate meat.

    But, here the point is should we also eat if He eats? This reminds a story from the life of Sankaracharya.

    His disciples were trying to imitate in all respects. Most of the times, such disciples try to follow the gurus to avoid some practices which are, they think, difficult to follow. Acharya Sankara observed that and did not want to warn them. But he wanted to show something to them. While going for Bhiksha, on the way, where there was gold-smith shop and gold was melted in a mould, Acharya took the mould and dropped into his mouth. The disciples who wanted to imitate everything, also wanted to drink it after the Guru. But he could not even touch the mould and felt ashamed for his ignorance.

    There will be many incidents in Rama's life also. We need to take a few, which are needed to set our lives. Learn more about them and follow. Leave rest of the things. Why they did and how they did in those days are not necessary for us. This happens in any history related case because you and i were not present over there to see what was happening. Each and every individual have their own view to justify the answer given by them. It may be right in his view and might be wrong in others view. It is all left to the individual what to take it and what not to....

  • View on Vegetarians:

    Helpful Tips on Sanatana Dharma / Hindu Principles - 110Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism as a dietary law because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

    They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime as compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz. Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the masters whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer in U.S.A. who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human beings. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water. Latest researches show that the plants can even feel happy and sad. It can also cry.

    Once a vegetarian argued his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal. Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the judge to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a masoom, an innocent person, and the judge should give the murderer a greater punishment.

"We have shared different views on this topic in this post and it is not meant to hurt any individual's feelings"


Post a Comment