[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Rama does eat meat
On 17 Jan 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
> Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Jan 1996, Sankar Jayanarayanan wrote:
> >
> >> > **
> >> > >>Even in the Ramayana, Rama is described as eating meat.
> >> > >
> >> > >Strictly not true, at least for the Valmiki Ramayana, which is the most
> >> > >authoritative one currently available.
> >> I already have checked it with my father. In the Sundara Kanda, the 36th sarga,
> >> the 41st sloka describes how Hanuman tells Sita, " When you were away, Sri Rama
> >> didnot even take deer meat." The meaning should be clear...
> >
> >
> >Actually, the meaning is not clear in the sense in which you mean. By
> >saying that "Sri Rama did not even take deer meat" Hanuman seems to be
> >implying that Sita's absence was cause for Rama to stop a routine action.
> >"...did not even take deer meat" seems to imply that Rama ceased doing
> >something he often did, in this case eating deer meet when Sita was
> >kidnapped;
>
> Till here you make perfect sense. Obviously "Rama did not even take deer meat"
> means that he was so distressed that he stopped eating deer meat which was very
> dear (Hee Hee, I am punning) to him.
>
> >the use of "even" in the shloka signifies a kind of
> >imperitiveness of Rama's actions, some thing done which would ordinarily
> >not have been done.
>
> What !!??? Please explain this logic further. It should provide some
> interesting reading.
I agree. It was a bit unclear. I was just reiterating that fact that Rama
stopped doing something (eating deer meat) which was usually done.
Anshuman Pandey
